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,aa968038a51ee866 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Uri Shina Subject: Re: Q: Ada.Unchecked_Deallocation Date: 1996/07/27 Message-ID: <31FA6083.3486@iol.co.il>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 170770735 references: <31E5D4D1.11DB36E1@jinx.sckans.edu> <4s9o6h$ro4@news-e2b.gnn.com> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: Internet Gold mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada x-mailer: Mozilla 3.0b5a (Win95; I) Date: 1996-07-27T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar wrote: > > Andy said > > "The DEC VMS implementation of Unchecked Allocation and Deallocation is > not totally unchecked. It is a generic function that will fail at > compile time if the size of the memory to be created/removed is not > the same as the instantiated function. I assumed other > implementations would do the same. Are there totally unchecked > implementations out there?" I have noticed that memory allocated during a VMS AST wasn't deallocated by Unchecked Deallocation. > That's a bit confused, and cannot be right as written since often > UD is used to free items whose size is only known at execution time. > What exactly do you mean here? (or can someone else who knows the > details on this check eludicated). Since Free is a type checked > function like any other in Ada, what could be violated here? One > can imagine a check at the malloc/free type level, but I don't > see that any high level Ada check makes any sense at all. That's confused and more, it makes servers to exhaust it quata.