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-Thread: 103376,b1a1671673a84c5e,start
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!tudelft.nl!txtfeed1.tudelft.nl!news.buerger.net!LF.net!news.enyo.de!not-for-mail
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Allocators for anonymous access return types
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 13:18:02 +0100
Message-ID: <87ocaa1rph.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: idssi.enyo.de 1288527482 32495 172.17.135.6 (31 Oct 2010 12:18:02
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@enyo.de
Cancel-Lock: sha1:PXyoXCC1lX2l9V+Weeu45nB7N7I=
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:16007
Date: 2010-10-31T13:18:02+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

It seems that an allocator for an anonymous accesss return type of a
library-level function essentially leaks memory (unless you use
garbage collection, of course).  Is this really the case?  I would
expect such objects to be deallocated by the master for the expression
where the return type occurs.