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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5cb36983754f64da
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-04-03 22:04:12 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsmm00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.t-online.com!not-for-mail
From: Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: No call for Ada (was Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping
 language)
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 19:14:00 +0200
Organization: AdaCL
Message-ID: <1170954.WBiMz5ev3p@linux1.krischik.com>
References: <20040206174017.7E84F4C4114@lovelace.ada-france.org>
 <mailman.3.1076142690.295.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
 <m3isij11u4.fsf_-_@insalien.org>
 <54759e7e.0402071124.322ea376@posting.google.com>
 <m3smhmz2fo.fsf@insalien.org> <rxmbc.53$bh.32@lakeread02>
 <pan.2004.04.02.23.55.20.921881@email.ro> <87r7v5zao0.fsf@insalien.org>
 <6803831.c4KqqVc08g@linux1.krischik.com> <ifednVSev6YETvPdRVn-uQ@comcast.com>
Reply-To: krischik@users.sourceforge.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
X-Trace: news.t-online.com 1081058570 07 24229 MmPRGKXLE5Fx8lW 040404 06:02:50
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@t-online.de
X-ID: b-NUV2ZpYemV99TIZX2ZEieibwaI-VS0PdH62KBIkZhM2m9VSr+IrR
User-Agent: KNode/0.7.7
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6736
Date: 2004-04-03T19:14:00+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert I. Eachus wrote:

> Martin Krischik wrote:
> 
>> Wich reminds me. Does anybody know what - should - happen when:
>> 
>> Access_X is access X;
>> All_X is access all X;
>> 
>> for Access_X'Pool use Access_Pool;
>> for All_X'Pool use All_Pool;
>> 
>> Some_X : Access_X := new X;
>> Another_X : All_X := Some_X;
>> 
>> function Deallocate is new Unchecked_Deallocation (X, All_X);
>> 
>> begin
>>     Deallocate (Another_X);
>> end;
> 
> No.  The execution of the call to Deallocate is erroneous. 
> RM 13.11.2(16) "The execution of a call to an 
> instance of Unchecked_Deallocation is erroneous if the object was 
> created other than by an allocator for an access type whose pool is 
> Name'Storage_Pool."

Thank you for the explanation. Of corse, I have never done such a nasty
thing and I never intended to. Just wanted to know. And I will continue to
not use "access all" when "access" will do nicely.

With Regards

Martin  

-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
http://www.ada.krischik.com