From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	RATWARE_MS_HASH,RATWARE_OUTLOOK_NONAME autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,e2e6547249e6f9d1
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "wiljan" <W.Derks@nl.cis.philips.com>
Subject: Re: How to wait for task completion
Date: 1996/09/17
Message-ID: <01bba4c8$a5ad67c0$2d208b82@wd>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 181179466
references: <01bba2e8$c45aad90$35208b82@wd>
 <qw6k9tw3sci.fsf@gargantua.enst.fr> <01bba3f7$ee398fe0$10208b82@wd>
 <qw67mpth8zi.fsf@gargantua.enst.fr> <51mhns$jif@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>
organization: Philips Electronics N.V.
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-09-17T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Norman H. Cohen <ncohen@watson.ibm.com> wrote in article
<51mhns$jif@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>...
> Indeed, RM95-C.7.2(17) guarantees this.  However, unlike Ada 83, Ada 95
> does not guarantee that unchecked deallocation will reclaim the storage
> for a task object (or for a composite object with a subcomponent that is
> a task object), even if the task has terminated when the deallocation
> procedure is called!  See the last sentence of RM95-13.11.2(9).
> 
> I hope none of the implementors has read this sentence. :-)
Incredible. I think here is a point to look at in the next Ada standard.

Thanks for pointing me to the locations in the RM.

Wiljan