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: fee84,8ce99ea6024a3adf,start
X-Google-Attributes: gidfee84,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,8ce99ea6024a3adf,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "Syseca Ltd" <fred@syseca.co.uk>
Subject: Unchecked Deallocation in DEC Unix 3.2g
Date: 1997/09/12
Message-ID: <01bcbf85$d5907120$65a4989e@syseca01>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 271885935
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: syseca01.demon.co.uk [158.152.164.101]
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.unix.osf.osf1
Date: 1997-09-12T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


I am trying to use unchecked_deallocation (I think I am aware of the
possible
pittfalls) on DEC Ada 3.3 under OSF Unix 3.2g.

Some experimentation reveals that unchecked deallocation doesn't always
seem
to release the memory back for reuse.

I understand that when the memory is freed that the process size given by
'ps' does
not reduce, but if I get another portion of memory after deallocation, I
would
expect this portion of memory to be reavailable for use.

Has anyone got any experience with unchecked deallocation, possibly with
the same environment?
We will putting the question to DEC via our support contract but I just
wondered if
anyone had got any information.. If necessary I could supply a section of
code.

Thanks for any help,

Rob Kirkbride (Syseca Ltd)