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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f4fd2,8e3b3db66f3b0061 X-Google-Attributes: gidf4fd2,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,8e3b3db66f3b0061 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,8e3b3db66f3b0061 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,474d28ddf953b3c1 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: fd443,8e3b3db66f3b0061 X-Google-Attributes: gidfd443,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-12-12 19:36:30 PST Path: nntp.gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!EU.net!Austria.EU.net!newsfeed.ACO.net!swidir.switch.ch!epflnews!dinews.epfl.ch!di.epfl.ch!Robb.Nebbe From: Robb.Nebbe@di.epfl.ch (Robb Nebbe) Newsgroups: alt.lang.design,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Reference Counting (was Re: Searching Method for Incremental Garbage Collection) Date: 12 Dec 1994 09:36:04 GMT Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne Sender: nebbe@lglsun3.epfl.ch (Robb Nebbe) Distribution: world Message-ID: <1994Dec12.102851@di.epfl.ch> References: <3bii2g$kn2@news.parc.xerox.com> <3bjfep$9ss@gamma.ois.com> <3bo43b$61v@news.parc.xerox.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lglsun3.epfl.ch Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Xref: nntp.gmd.de comp.lang.c:71851 comp.lang.c++:82465 comp.lang.lisp:9549 comp.lang.ada:17450 Date: 1994-12-12T09:36:04+00:00 List-Id: In article , bobduff@dsd.camb.inmet.com (Bob Duff) writes: |> |> But it seems to me that in a language like Ada, if a given object only |> has one reference pointing to it, and that fact is known at compile |> time, then you would almost always declare that object as a normal |> stack-allocated object. So it would not be in the heap in the first |> place, so reference counting would never occur. |> A lot of this time this is correct but there are many cases where the lifetime of an object doesn't mesh with the concept of scope. If the birth and death of an object are tied to external events completely outside the control of the program then stack allocation won't work. Robb Nebbe