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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,fd63afa4dc364b7e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-03-14 14:08:03 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!news-out.usenetserver.com!news-out-sjo.usenetserver.com!news.tele.dk!193.190.198.17!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!nerim.net!grolier!club-internet!not-for-mail From: Laurent Guerby Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Better support for garbage collection Date: 14 Mar 2001 23:05:12 +0100 Organization: Club-Internet (France) Message-ID: <861ys03t2f.fsf@acm.org> References: <98m938$2iod0$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: nas6-127.vlt.club-internet.fr X-Trace: front1m.grolier.fr 984607453 17125 194.158.108.127 (14 Mar 2001 22:04:13 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 Mar 2001 22:04:13 GMT X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.5 Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:5740 Date: 2001-03-14T22:04:13+00:00 List-Id: What I would like to see in Ada is to have an allocator where you pass the pool object at allocation and deallocation. One pool per type is not very flexible. The advantages I see: - If you know only one task access the given pool object, you need no lock - You can have an allocation / deallocation policy customized to your local algorithm. - You can use a strategy where you allocate very quiclky, and deallocate only on destruction of the pool object. Why did Ada 95 include pool objects only on a per type basis? -- Laurent Guerby