From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_20 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1 Date: 31 Jul 93 03:27:55 GMT From: slinky.cs.nyu.edu!slinky.cs.nyu.edu!nobody@nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Query about monitor (passive) task optimization Message-ID: <23corr$a8g@schonberg.cs.nyu.edu> List-Id: Mike assumes that automatic recognition of passive tasks is a good thing. He is apparently unaware that this is by no means obvious, and indeed most of the Ada folks in realtime areas that I have talked to do not AT ALL like the idea of such automatic recognition, and much prefer explicit control over thread structure. Many of us felt in the Ada 9X process that the needs for efficient tasking would better be met by formalizing and structuring the opportunities for this kind of task optimization, but it was quite clear that the realtime community much prefers the explicit approach as exemplified by the protected type feature of 9X. I also know that Alsys found in deciding how to proceed that people in general much preferred the kind of explicit pragma approach that Verdix uses to the kind of automatic recognition that DDC does. So, sure it's nice to see different vendors doing different things and taking different approaches, but Mike's "finally! at last! someone doing something reasonable for tasking!" approach is plainly inappropriate.