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,b2dd3ff35d68d825
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-04-09 14:39:33 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.uchicago.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!proxad.net!freenix!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail
From: Samuel Tardieu <sam@rfc1149.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Unchecked_Deallocation subtleties
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 23:39:31 +0200
Organization: TELECOM Paris
Message-ID: <87llyj5p0s.fsf@inf.enst.fr>
References: <slrnb97ort.27o.pioter@chmurka.galaxy.faraway>
 <87smssj94u.fsf@inf.enst.fr>
 <b7135j$8v2$1@slb3.atl.mindspring.net> <3E94502E.6070108@cogeco.ca>
 <oprndpd4lebqmqul@news.cis.dfn.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: m34.net81-65-250.noos.fr
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1049924372 95453 81.65.250.34 (9 Apr 2003
 21:39:32 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 21:39:32 +0000 (UTC)
Mail-Copies-To: sam@rfc1149.net
User-Agent: Gnus/5.090007 (Oort Gnus v0.07) XEmacs/21.4 (Military
 Intelligence, i386--freebsd)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:G1RSoH3VDf0vEtIGgCz+el3Dc9k=
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:36036
Date: 2003-04-09T23:39:31+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

>>>>> "Nick" == Nick Roberts <nickroberts@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:

Nick> Consider the following example skeleton piece of code:

Nick>    declare
Nick>       X: Some_Access_Type;
Nick>    begin
Nick>       ...  -- [1] Y := X.all; -- [2] last use of X ...  -- [3]
Nick>       Free(X); -- [4]
Nick>    end;

Nick> Although it may be that no compiler would (or even could) do so
Nick> in practice, other rules in the ARM made it theoretically
Nick> possible for the implementation to automatically reclaim the
Nick> storage occupied by whatever X pointed to (assuming no other
Nick> access value pointed to it) at any point in the elided code
Nick> section [3].

I would say that Free(X) is certainly a use of X, so the last use of X
is not in [2], it is in [4].

  Sam
-- 
Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/sam