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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,17894b356437d04f,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1995-01-18 10:59:07 PST
Path: 
 nntp.gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news1.digex.net!ois.com!ois.com!not-for-mail
From: beckwb@ois.com (R. William Beckwith)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Question regarding LRM 5.95 7.6(19)
Date: 18 Jan 1995 13:59:07 -0500
Organization: Objective Interface Systems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <3fjodr$99j@gamma.ois.com>
References: <leschkes.790279202@ferret> <3fgik5$1fn0@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gamma.ois.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Date: 1995-01-18T13:59:07-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Norman H. Cohen (ncohen@watson.ibm.com) wrote:
: their presence too.

: For the programmer, this means that you should not count on exotic side
: effects that depend on Finalize and Adjust being invoked some precise
: number of times.  Normal uses of Finalize and Adjust will work normally,
: however, even in the presence of optimizations.

I was under the impression that any object that is initialize'd or
adjust'ed _will_ always get finalize'd.  However, some objects may
(potentially) get finalize'd more than once and/or get finalize'd
without ever being initialize'd or adjust'ed.
 
I have reference counting that depends on this behavior.
Am I safe? Lawyers?  Compiler writers?
  
... Bill