CVS difference for acs/ac-00277.txt

Differences between 1.1 and version 1.2
Log of other versions for file acs/ac-00277.txt

--- acs/ac-00277.txt	2016/06/01 04:56:10	1.1
+++ acs/ac-00277.txt	2016/10/06 04:09:45	1.2
@@ -795,3 +795,77 @@
 The resistance to changes to Ravenscar is high, and there are work rounds.
 
 ***************************************************************
+
+From: Florian Schanda
+Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016  8:00 AM
+
+> Fair enough.  Alan has proposed the IRTAW take a look at 
+> Synchronous_Barriers, so hopefully by the time of the next ARG meeting 
+> we will have IRTAW's view on this.  They have in the past been pretty 
+> conservative about accepting Ada features into Ravenscar, so they are 
+> probably going to consider this carefully.
+
+What was the end result of this?
+
+The GNAT extended ravenscar profile
+(https://docs.adacore.com/gnathie_ug-docs/html/gnathie_ug/gnathie_ug/the_predefined_profiles.html)
+does not seem to lift this restriction.
+
+Am I mis-reading this? I do think Synchronous_Barriers are useful and
+it would be nice to include them.
+
+***************************************************************
+
+From: Jeff Cousins
+Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016  8:46 AM
+
+This caused quite a bit of debate.  Tucker proposed allowing them but didn't
+get a single supporter, then IRTAW came back confirming that they didn't want
+them.
+
+***************************************************************
+
+From: Tuckeer Taft
+Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016  9:10 AM
+
+I suspect that part of this was related to whether "extended" Ravenscar would
+replace the original Ravenscar, or be a separate profile.  The conclusion was
+that it should be a separate profile.  So the question now is whether
+Synchronous_Barriers should be a part of "extended Ravenscar" (aka
+"Vulturescar"?).  I have CC'ed Pat Rogers to answer this one, since it might
+or might not be intentional that this particular restriction was retained.
+
+***************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016  2:33 PM
+
+> > This caused quite a bit of debate.  Tucker proposed allowing them 
+> > but didn't get a single supporter, then IRTAW came back confirming 
+> > that they didn't want them.
+
+For the record, the mail thread is filed in AC-00277 (this extension to
+Ravenscar).
+ 
+> I suspect that part of this was related to whether "extended" 
+> Ravenscar would replace the original Ravenscar, or be a separate 
+> profile.  The conclusion was that it should be a separate profile.  So 
+> the question now is whether Synchronous_Barriers should be a part of 
+> "extended Ravenscar"
+> (aka "Vulturescar"?).
+
+I've been suggesting "Condorscar" since this idea came up; one wants a large
+scavenger without a negative reputation and the Condor fits the bill.
+(Vultures have a very negative connotation.)
+
+> I have CC'ed Pat Rogers to answer this one, since it might or might 
+> not be intentional that this particular restriction was retained.
+
+Seems like an oversight to me, but that depends on exactly which Ravenscar
+restrictions are being lifted in the new profile. (It's the length of the
+protected entry queue allowed that would matter; if that remains at 1, then
+barriers should not be allowed either as they effectively require a longer
+queue.)
+
+***************************************************************
+

Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent