From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!reality.xs3.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!loke.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Timeouts in Ada
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 18:44:55 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <lqk8ln$50m$1@loke.gir.dk>
References: <50bdb713-7ce1-411b-810b-9bdee1d26b7a@googlegroups.com>
 <lq7uhv$vao$1@dont-email.me> <lq982c$t2c$2@dont-email.me>
 <39a6309b-2920-4cec-818a-eb8ee46474d9@googlegroups.com>
 <lq9d2e$2on$1@dont-email.me>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1405986295 5142 69.95.181.76 (21 Jul 2014 23:44:55 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 23:44:55 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:21125
Date: 2014-07-21T18:44:55-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"J-P. Rosen" <rosen@adalog.fr> wrote in message 
news:lq9d2e$2on$1@dont-email.me...
> Le 17/07/2014 22:29, Adam Beneschan a écrit :
>> J-P's statement makes no sense if we're talking about low-level or OS 
>> threads
> I should have included my statement between <lawiers_hat_off> ...
> </lawiers_hat_off>
>
> In practice, and not to confuse the OP, tasks correspond to OS threads.
> I meant that the language does not require creating separate threads
> when not explicitely stated. Of course, a crazy implementation can do it
> any way it pleases, provided it is equivalent to the model.

Nothing crazy about it for implementing ATC. I remember talking about doing 
exactly that when Ada 9x was designed, and the rules were supposed to allow 
it. But it does require some hoops vis-a-vis exceptions, current task, etc.

ATC isn't useful on Windows unless one uses two threads, as most OS calls 
cannot be interrupted. The first example in the RM - 9.7.4(11) will never 
work on Windows unless a two thread model is used. We just discussed that in 
the ARG meeting -- in your office no less -- I'm surprised that you forgot 
about it.

Of course, we decided that it's not important that ATC is useful. (We added 
a disclaimer that cannot possibly be true of the first example.) Ergo, 
talking about ATC is a waste of time, no one should use it because you can't 
expect it to work (portably).

                                                 Randy.