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
Edward Colbert <[log in to unmask]>
Thu, 28 Jun 2001 11:31:52 -0700
text/plain (49 lines)
Hi Randy,

I didn't _forget_ 9.5.1(18), I just couldn't remember which paragraph said
that I/O subprograms are potentially and couldn't find the paragraph in my
quick review (;->).  But, that answers my question, thanks!

Take Care,

"Always do right.  It will please a few and astonish the rest."
 Mark Twain
Edward Colbert
Absolute Software Co., Inc.
1444 Sapphire Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92009-1200
Phone:   (760) 929-0612
FAX:     (760) 929-0236
E-Mail:  [log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Brukardt [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 10:56 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Concurrency & I/0

> Hi All,
> Can someone confirm that it is still implementation defined whether I/O
> operations (Put, Get, 'Write, 'Read) are atomic, blocking, or subject to
> Priority_Ceiling.  In quick review of the manual & rational, I found the
> following:


You forgot 9.5.1(18): IO subprograms are "potentially blocking". (And thus
cannot be called from a protected object.) Thus, the question about
Priority_Ceiling is moot.

Of course, that doesn't say whether they REALLY are blocking.

                Randy Brukardt.