From: "Frank J. Lhota" <NOSPAM.lhota@adarose.com>
Subject: Re: Memory management clarification
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 18:11:09 GMT
Date: 2005-07-26T18:11:09+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <11vFe.19868$iR2.16009@trndny02> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <wccu0ihzm01.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Robert A Duff wrote:
> "Frank J. Lhota" <NOSPAM.lhota@adarose.com> writes:
> That's not quite true, either. Most implementations use a global heap
> by default, and never automatically reclaim memory. If you use a
> Storage_Size clause on a local access type, then what you say is true.
> But local access types are not very useful.
You're right, I left out the Storage_Size condition.
Although local access types are very rare, I have seen code where a
local access type is used to create a temporary structure that is used
for the subprogram call, then conveniently goes away when the subprogram
completes. So I wouldn't say that local access types are not very
useful, just not very common.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-07-26 18:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-07-26 9:57 Memory management clarification Maciej Sobczak
2005-07-26 10:38 ` Adrien Plisson
2005-07-26 14:19 ` Robert A Duff
2005-07-26 13:57 ` Frank J. Lhota
2005-07-26 14:21 ` Robert A Duff
2005-07-26 18:11 ` Frank J. Lhota [this message]
2005-07-26 14:17 ` Robert A Duff
2005-07-26 15:39 ` Maciej Sobczak
2005-07-26 17:45 ` Robert A Duff
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox