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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,2866100c9a2b8ce7,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Jonas Nygren <ehsjony@ehs.ericsson.se>
Subject: Free'ing extended types
Date: 1996/04/26
Message-ID: <3180F084.7285@ehs.ericsson.se>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 151586714
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: Ericsson Hewlett-Packard Telecommunications AB
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
x-mailer: Mozilla 2.01Gold (WinNT; I)
Date: 1996-04-26T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


I read the following in the RM on unchecked_deallocation:

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. 

I don't quite understand what is written but have a
vague feeling that the code example below could be
labeled 'erroneous execution' by the above paragraph.

Perhaps somebody can answer - is the following code legal:

type a is tagged with .........;
type ap is access all a'class;

procedure free is new unchecked_deallocation(a, ap);

tybe b is new a with .........; -- a is extended

p : ap := new b;

free(p);

Are 'a' and 'b' belonging to the same Name'Storage_Pool?

/jonas