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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Xref: utzoo comp.lang.ada:2902 comp.sw.components:412
Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!sunybcs!planck!planck!hercules!westley@cs.buffalo.edu
From: planck!hercules!westley@cs.buffalo.edu
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.sw.components
Subject: Portability of Unchecked Deallocation in Ada
Message-ID: <1989Nov15.194253.3971@planck.uucp>
Date: 15 Nov 89 19:42:53 GMT
Sender: news@planck.uucp (Usenet News)
Reply-To: planck!hercules!westley@cs.buffalo.edu
Followup-To: comp.lang.ada
Organization: Calspan Corporation ATC  Buffalo, NY
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

I have been studying Booch's _Software_Compenents_with_Ada_ and
wondered why he did not mention use of unchecked deallocation as a
third approach to managing the memory withing a software component
that uses access types.

If you have his book, I'm refering to section 6.3.  For those who
don't, he suggested two approaches to managing the memory:  1) letting
the compiler/run-time system perform garbage collection, and 2) managing
it directly in Ada by using a linked list of free nodes.

My question relates to the use of unchecked deallocation.  Is it a
language requirement that unchecked deallocation work or is this
implementation dependent?  I have used it in Verdix and Telesoft
compilers to successfully manage dynamic memory, but I can't tell
from what the reference manual says as to whether it is required.


Terry J. Westley
Arvin/Calspan Advanced Technology Center
P.O. Box 400, Buffalo, NY 14225
planck!hercules!westley@cs.buffalo.edu