TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Proportional Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Sender:
"Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 5 Nov 1997 11:43:51 -0600
Reply-To:
Samuel Mize <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
MIME-Version:
1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
In-Reply-To:
<3.0.3.32.19971105081218.00965140@puumba> from "Keith Shillington" at Nov 5, 97 08:12:18 am
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
From:
Samuel Mize <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (33 lines)
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)

ATOM RSS1 RSS2