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: 103376,7833e44c4d0da1bf
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Mats Weber <Mats.Weber@elca-matrix.ch>
Subject: Re: Task deallocation
Date: 1997/03/03
Message-ID: <331B1C78.5215@elca-matrix.ch>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 222913574
References: <01bc2193$50d867c0$829d6482@joy.ericsson.se>
 <3316EB5F.54B7@elca-matrix.ch> <dewar.857223071@merv>
Organization: ELCA Matrix SA
Reply-To: Mats.Weber@elca-matrix.ch
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-03-03T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


> <<On a reasonable implementation, all memory will be reclaimed when the
> task terminates.>>
> 
> Probably this is false, think about the implementation of the 'Terminated
> query, certainly you cannot assume it is true.

OK. How is it done in GNAT ?

Do you think that the approach of keeping a pool of unused tasks of each
task type for later recycling (as I suggested earlier in this thread,
i.e. 'manual', self-programmed memory management) is still necessary
with modern Ada 95 compilers ?