TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy


Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
"Rimmer, Paul" <[log in to unmask]>
Wed, 5 Nov 1997 13:39:16 -0500
text/plain (53 lines)
Why are you using an implementation dependent language feature to force
task switching?  Is it that you have extremely long threads between
context switch points?  If so you might consider reducing these thread
lengths rather than sticking delay 0's all over the place.  I'd be
curious to hear why you are using them.

I think that the need to use delay 0's in this manner is a flag pointing
to bigger design issues.

[log in to unmask]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Samuel Mize [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 1997 10:44 AM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Re: delay 0.0
> Tom Moran wrote:
> >   Two questions: Is my understanding correct?
> Looks like it, see other recent messages on this list.
> >Are there compilers that
> > don't task switch on "delay 0.0;"?
> I'm working around it with one at work right this very hour.  It's
> a full Ada 83 with a partial implementation of Ada 95, but it's the
> only game on this processor.
> After a delay of 0.0, the same task resumes.
> Keith Shillington wrote:
> > >I believe it was not required in Ada 83 that a "delay 0.0" provide
> a
> > >task rescheduling opportunity.  My guess is that they didn't
> realize
> > >it would be an issue.
> > Excellent guess.  And "they" would be "he".
> Well, all fairness aside, there were a number of design reviews (with,
> of course, a number of reviewers).
> Best,
> Sam Mize
> --
> Samuel Mize -- [log in to unmask] -- Team Ada
> (personal net account)