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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,6b1a1ed8b075945
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homepage@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Allocators and exceptions
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 05:13:11 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1189599191.957752.176350@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
References: <1189323618.588340.87180@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
   <fc4uqq$ij6$1@jacob-sparre.dk>
   <1189524788.300591.312380@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
   <1189547814.740732.220140@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
   <%tGFi.80362$Xa3.20645@attbi_s22>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 137.138.37.241
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1189599192 25139 127.0.0.1 (12 Sep 2007 12:13:12
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:13:12 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <%tGFi.80362$Xa3.20645@attbi_s22>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
 rv:1.8.0.12) Gecko/20070724 Red Hat/1.5.0.12-0.3.slc3
 Firefox/1.5.0.12,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com; posting-host=137.138.37.241;
   posting-account=ps2QrAMAAAA6_jCuRt2JEIpn5Otqf_w0
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:1904
Date: 2007-09-12T05:13:11-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 12 Wrz, 02:34, "Jeffrey R. Carter"
<spam.jrcarter....@acm.nospam.org> wrote:

> It looks legal to me. I've added a little test to see what's happening
> with P:
[...]

> and get output:
>
> P = null => FALSE
>   123
>
> I suppose P could be dangling, with the memory it points to not yet
> reused, but I suspect that is not the case.

You did not check whether the deallocation was actually performed as a
result of the exception. If not, P points to a valid (although not
fully initialized) object. There is also no memory leak, since you
have references to all allocated objects.

You should create your own pool and trace the calls to Allocate/
Deallocate to conclude anything useful from such a test.

--
Maciej Sobczak
http://www.msobczak.com/