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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,345a8b767542016e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-03-20 20:31:56 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: wv9557@yahoo.com (Will)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: memory leakages with Ada?
Date: 20 Mar 2002 20:31:56 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <4a885870.0203202031.6eedf2ca@posting.google.com>
References: <3c90af1e@news.starhub.net.sg> <a6r075$7ei$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <3c91bfa3.1987537@news.demon.co.uk> <a6svum$5u8$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <3C9629E3.8030109@home.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.173.188.113
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1016685116 19080 127.0.0.1 (21 Mar 2002 04:31:56
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 21 Mar 2002 04:31:56 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:21506
Date: 2002-03-21T04:31:56+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@home.com> wrote in message news:<3C9629E3.8030109@home.com>...
> 
> This was actually one of my first observations when I started learning Ada95.
> A C function does not have a simple way to return a string (a few basic
> choices exist, though one can vary the theme somewhat). C++ gets around this
> with objects, but they end up resorting to malloc() inside of the object to
> carry this off. (excuse the lack of const keywords in these C examples) :
> 
> /* The malloc approach */
> char *uppercase(char *s) {
>      char *buf = strdup(s);   /* Clone the string for modification */
> 
>      ...do uppercasing on buf...
>      return buf;
> }
> 
> The caller gets a dynamically allocated string back, and must free it when
> he is finished with it. Ug.
> 
> /* The dirty old static buffer approach */
> char *uppercase(char *s) {
>      static char my_big_buf[4096];
> 
>      strcpy(my_big_buf,s);
>      ...do uppercasing on my_big_buf...
>      return my_big_buf;
> }
> 
> This is very bad, because it won't work for all sized strings. It is also
> very unsafe in threaded programs. Ug!
> 
> /* The user supplied buffer approach */
> char *uppercase(char *s, char *user_buf) {
>      strcpy(user_buf,s);
>      ...do uppercasing in user_buf...
>      return user_buf;
> }
The horrible thing about these examples is the absence of bounds checkings.