Re: 'Valid, subtypes and constraint checking - Thanks

[Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com>]

I might like it better if it actually *did* guarantee that it was going 
to return storage to some available storage pool. (Bumper Sticker 
Sighting: "Free the Mallocs!") As it stands now, I can write a data 
structure package that handles all your inserts and deletes and utilizes 
Unchecked_Deallocation rather than managing its own storage pool and end 
up with a memory leak in what would otherwise appear to be perfectly 
good code.

Perhaps in practice, most compilers have connected 
Unchecked_Deallocation to some OS "free" routine. I suppose it is the 
job of the vendor to document that and the job of the user to check that 
this is the case. It would just be nice to have the standard guarantee 
that it does this or at least provide a means to check that the 
Unchecked_Deallocation actually *did* reclaim the storage. That way, 
you'd know if you could count on it to do the job you'd expect it to do.

MDC


Robert I. Eachus wrote:
> In both cases, the compiler is not promising the user it won't do any 
> checking, or will free the memory pointed to by the access value. The 
> purpose of these units is to allow the programmer to assert something to 
> the compiler.
> 


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

     "All reformers, however strict their social conscience,
      live in houses just as big as they can pay for."

          --Logan Pearsall Smith
======================================================================