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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,89cbee942992178a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "Robert L. Spooner" <RLS@Sor.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: Deallocating Task objects
Date: 1997/02/18
Message-ID: <3309C668.7D8E@Sor.psu.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 219624128
References: <01bc1b53$fb0251c0$829d6482@joy.ericsson.se>
 <33086C65.F9F@elca-matrix.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Applied Research Laboratory
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: rls19@psu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (WinNT; I)
Date: 1997-02-18T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Mats Weber wrote:
> 
> It was absulutely necessary to use this approach five years ago with DEC
> Ada and Verdix Ada because these implementations always kept some memory
> allocated for tasks pointed to by library-level access types. I don't
> know if it's still required, but we continue using that approach because
> it's not much extra work as we have a generic package that we
> instantiate for this purpose, and it automatically gives us some
> information on how many tasks of each type we dynamically allocate.

For Ada 83 some memory had to be kept so that the task attributes such
as 
T'terminated could be used.  I don't know enough about Ada (95) yet to
know 
if it is still necessary.
-- 
                               Robert L. Spooner
                        Registered Professional Engineer
                               Research Assistant
                        Guidance and Control Department

               Applied Research Laboratory        Phone: (814) 863-4120
               The Pennsylvania State University  FAX:   (814) 863-7843
               P. O. Box 30
               State College, PA 16804-0030       RLS19@psu.edu