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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,345a8b767542016e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-03-18 13:18:54 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-01!supernews.com!207.217.77.43.MISMATCH!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!uunet!lax.uu.net!sac.uu.net!ash.uu.net!spool0900.news.uu.net!reader0900.news.uu.net!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <3C9659B6.6030204@mail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 16:18:46 -0500
From: Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020311
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: memory leakages with Ada?
References: <3c90af1e@news.starhub.net.sg> <a6r075$7ei$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <3c91bfa3.1987537@news.demon.co.uk> <a6svum$5u8$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <3C9629E3.8030109@home.com> <3C9645DD.4020006@mail.com>
 <X1Rimexgm78R@eisner.encompasserve.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: KBC Financial Products
Cache-Post-Path: master.nyc.kbcfp.com!unknown@fixedcost.nyc.kbcfp.com
X-Cache: nntpcache 2.3.3 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.253.250.10
X-Trace: 1016486333 reader0.ash.ops.us.uu.net 14926 204.253.250.10
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:21425
Date: 2002-03-18T16:18:46-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Larry Kilgallen wrote:
>>>declare
>>>   UC : String := Uppercase("Take that!");
 >
> Construction of the variable-size array in the frame of the
> caller is what is done by the portion of Warren's post shown
> above.

Sure, but I have to assume that the value constructed in the
called routine then needs to be copied to the callers frame
instead of being constructed in place. I don't see how this
can be otherwise using a conventional stack, unless you don't
pop the stack after a call, which would blow the stack away
if you had the call in a loop.