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,ed6a891101ff4e06
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: tmoran@bix.com (Tom Moran)
Subject: Re: Freeing Pointers to classwide types
Date: 1998/09/28
Message-ID: <360f143c.39974468@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 395507899
References: <1ftmFTC69GA.191@samson.airnet.net>
 <360b26a1.41575272@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net>
 <6ugeu2$79u$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <360c4a70.29707515@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net>
 <6uifpt$e98$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <360d1380.165146@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net>
 <6ulj29$ne3$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
 <360e790d.241368@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net>
 <6umkl8$qbm$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
Organization: InterNex Information Services 1-800-595-3333
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-09-28T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

> it is actually quite easy
>in Ada 95 to do exactly what you want. You probably aren't familiar with
>the Storage_Pool facility -- many Ada programmers don't know this very
>powerful feature in the language well enough, but read up on it, you will
>find it allows you to do exactly what you want in a completely portable
>manner.
Deciding to use Storage Pools does not fall within my definition of
modest changes to a program.
  In any case, is it required that a compiler that does not free
memory when an access type goes out of scope, must free the memory if
the access type is to a user controlled storage pool?  That's not
obvious to me from reading the RM.  Or would the procedure declaring
the access type also have to declare an instance of the user defined
storage pool?  And if the reason not to use a compiler that frees the
storage is that it's expensive, is the user defined storage pool
technique cheap?