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,
	MSGID_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!igor!amber!geb
From: geb@amber.Rational.COM (Gary Barnes)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Implicit garbage collection in Ada systems
Message-ID: <817@igor.Rational.COM>
Date: 9 Jan 91 23:03:33 GMT
References: <9101021952.AA03454@papasun.mcs.anl.gov> <EACHUS.91Jan4133652@aries.linus.mitre.org>
Sender: news@Rational.COM
Organization: Rational, Santa Clara, CA
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <EACHUS.91Jan4133652@aries.linus.mitre.org> eachus@linus.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:
>     The second reason is that there are Ada compilers for several
>systems where garbage collection is normally a function of the
>operating system: Symbolics, Rational, Intel 432 (High Integrity
                              ^^^^^^^^

In the sense used by this thread, Rational does not provide garbage
collection.  The "garbage collection" provided by an R1000 is the same
as that provided by Unix or VMS.  When a program/process/job stops
running then the space in the "swap area" is reclaimed.  Internal to a
single program execution, this does not qualify as garbage collection.

Gary		geb@Rational.com