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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,13d6cd0af0d0d769 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1995-03-27 07:19:04 PST Path: nntp.gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.moneng.mei.com!uwm.edu!news.alpha.net!news.mathworks.com!uunet!portal.austin.ibm.com!bocanews.bocaraton.ibm.com!watnews.watson.ibm.com!ncohen From: ncohen@watson.ibm.com (Norman H. Cohen) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Does memory leak? Date: 27 Mar 1995 15:19:04 GMT Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center Distribution: world Message-ID: <3l6l18$12kj@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> References: <3kopao$ekg@nef.ens.fr> <1995Mar24.123006.9471@eisner> Reply-To: ncohen@watson.ibm.com NNTP-Posting-Host: rios8.watson.ibm.com Date: 1995-03-27T15:19:04+00:00 List-Id: In article <1995Mar24.123006.9471@eisner>, kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen, LJK Software) writes: |> From the Ada83 manual "An implementation may (but need not) reclaim the |> storage occupied by an object created by an allocator, once this object |> has become inaccessible." |> |> The next section describes the CONTROLLED pragma to forbid implementations |> from reclaiming memory except when leaving the innermost "block statement, |> subprogram body or task body" enclosing the type declaration. |> |> Is the complaint that Ada should force implementors to reclaim storage, |> or that when the CONTROLLED pragma is not used, implementations should |> take a less conservative approach than waiting to exit the scope of the |> type declaration? The wish is for implementations to take a less conservative approach, i.e., to provide garbage collection in the absence of the Controlled pragma. Waiting to exit the scope of a type declaration is a far more conservative approach than you make it sound, since interesting access types are typically declared in library packages, and thus do not go out of scope until the program is done! -- Norman H. Cohen ncohen@watson.ibm.com