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 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: 2002-03-19 09:12:58 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!news1.tor.metronet.ca!nnrp1.tor.metronet.ca!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <3C97713C.1040805@home.com>
From: "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@home.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:0.9.4) Gecko/20011128 Netscape6/6.2.1
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: memory leakages with Ada?
References: <3c90af1e@news.starhub.net.sg> <a6r075$7ei$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <3c91bfa3.1987537@news.demon.co.uk> <3C921A81.9060708@mail.com>
 <a6tq2m$rnb$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu>
 <dcfe911f.0203162143.327902b7@posting.google.com>
 <a71ffd$5c9$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu> <3C962624.5080008@home.com>
 <3c97027d.1284426@news.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 17:11:24 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.96.47.195
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 10:11:24 MDT
Organization: MetroNet Communications Group Inc.
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:21459
Date: 2002-03-19T17:11:24+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

John McCabe wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 17:38:46 GMT, "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG"
> <ve3wwg@home.com> wrote:
> 
>>My own personal observation is that C/C++ programmers will err on the
>>side of efficiency, rather than safety.  After a free()/delete, they'll
>>usually not set the pointer to null.
> 
> I'd never really thought of it as an efficiency issue but, having used
> C++ for about 8 months now almost full-time I've got to the stage of
> pretty much setting all pointers to NULL after a delete, unless
> they're in a destructor (as it does seem like a waste of time there).
> 
> Something else about unchecked deallocation, as far as I can remember,
> is that if you give it a null pointer it doesn't do anything. This is
> nice (but in a way it can make you lazy :-)


If this is true, this is bad IMHO. I'd rather know by an exception

that I was trying to free something that was "no more", than to go
glibly forward.  I'll have to test this on GNAT sometime.
-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg