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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,ed6a891101ff4e06 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewarr@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Freeing Pointers to classwide types Date: 1998/10/02 Message-ID: <6v3lr9$odq$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 397173415 References: <3613a5b1.186262@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net> <6v15di$87t$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <1998Oct2.123113.1@eisner> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x7.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Oct 02 22:58:50 1998 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/2.02 (OS/2; I) Date: 1998-10-02T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <1998Oct2.123113.1@eisner>, Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam wrote: > In article <6v15di$87t$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, dewarr@my-dejanews.com writes: > > In article , > > stt@houdini.camb.inmet.com (Tucker Taft) wrote: > >> Tom Moran (tmoran@bix.com) wrote: > >> > >> : ... > >> : Let me rephrase the question: If an access type goes out of scope, > >> : so the things it pointed to become inaccessible, is there any portable > >> : way to prevent an eventual Storage_Error from multiple calls of the > >> : block, without using Unchecked_Deallocation? > >> > >> Yes. Specify the 'Storage_Size associated with the access-type. > >> The implementation is required to reclaim the storage for the > >> access type when exiting its scope if a 'Storage_Size is specified > >> (see RM95 13.11(18)). > > > > > > Yes, indeed! Nice answer, but I was assuming that this obvious approach of > > fixed size allocation was not acceptable, in which case you are definitely > > going to have to use UD I am afraid :-) > > Is it common for implementations to allocate the maximum size when the > type is elaborated ? I had presumed the maximum would just be a limit > beyond which the total of one-at-a-time allocations would not proceed. > In that case I figured from the discussion that setting Storage_Size > to MAX_INT (never intending to get there) would accomplish the deallocation > purpose. > > Larry Kilgallen Yes absolutely, allocating the maximum immediately as a single area on the stack is the expected and usual implementation. -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own