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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,64ced24a7e89252e,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail
From: "Alex R. Mosteo" <devnull@mailinator.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Unchecked deallocation question
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 16:38:39 +0100
Message-ID: <41A4AAFF.5060407@mailinator.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de L2OZjqmNzMarU72eEYAdbwBHNoGMDCf1ub7BJ4ST0aJ4UWxP4=
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (X11/20041103)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6422
Date: 2004-11-24T16:38:39+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

I'm wondering if this is correct:

type Root is tagged record ...

type Root_Access is access Root;

type Derived is new Root with ...

type Derived_Access is access Derived;

procedure Free is
    new Ada.Unchecked_Deallocation (Root'Class, Root_Access);

declare
    It : Derived_Access := new Derived;
begin
    Free (Root_Access (It)); -- <-- THIS DEALLOCATION I'M ASKING
end;

Assuming that all involved access types use the same Storage_Pool.

The purpose is to have a single deallocator in the root package and to 
not have to instantiate a lot of deallocators for derived types.