From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon May 19 10:23:35 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA04884
          for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 19 May 1997 10:23:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from iworks.InterWorks.org (deischen@iworks.interworks.org [128.255.18.10])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA04879
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 19 May 1997 10:23:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from deischen@localhost) by iworks.InterWorks.org (8.7.5/) id MAA29008; Mon, 19 May 1997 12:24:07 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <199705191724.MAA29008@iworks.InterWorks.org>
Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 12:24:07 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Daniel M. Eischen" <deischen@iworks.InterWorks.org>
To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, terry@lambert.org
Subject: Re: GNAT-pthreads integration bugs/questions
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk


> This implies that the Ada Tasks are not anonymous "work to do" model
> threads.

Well, it depends on how you use tasks in your application.  The Ada
language provides for synchronization between tasks, and part of the
Ada Task Control Block is used for mutex/condition variable storage
just for this purpose.  But if there is no need for synchronization,
then I don't see why your thread/process wouldn't be able to run
under the limits of the OS.

Dan Eischen
deischen@iworks.InterWorks.org