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: 103376,64afbf156d06bbe7 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-09-30 05:45:24 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!cyclone.bc.net!sjc70.webusenet.com!news.webusenet.com!elnk-nf2-pas!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3F797AD7.4@noplace.com> From: Marin David Condic User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 (OEM-HPQ-PRS1C03) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: 'Valid, subtypes and constraint checking - Thanks References: <3F74E844.1020001@comcast.net> <3F78F159.9040800@comcast.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:45:23 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.165.26.251 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net 1064925923 209.165.26.251 (Tue, 30 Sep 2003 05:45:23 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 05:45:23 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:9 Date: 2003-09-30T12:45:23+00:00 List-Id: 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 ======================================================================