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 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!ucbvax!CMUCCVMA.cc.cmu.edu!madmats%elcit.epfl.ch From: madmats%elcit.epfl.ch@CMUCCVMA.cc.cmu.edu (Mats Weber) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Portability of Unchecked Deallocation in Ada Message-ID: <891116134144.2080179c@SIC.Epfl.CH> Date: 16 Nov 89 12:41:44 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet List-Id: Unchecked_Deallocation is not required to do anymore than setting its parameter to null. Effective deallocation of the memory is not required. However, most systems implement it correctly. I have submitted an Ada-9X revision request that requires Unchecked_Deallocation to work (i.e. to deallocate storage) if automatic garbage collection is not provided. This, however, is quite hard to specify in the way the semantics of the language are given in the LRM. There are other related deficiencies in the LRM. For example, it is not stated that constrained objects must occupy as little space as possible. Even worse, Storage_Error can be raised even at places where it is not 'sensible' to do so. In these areas, it seems that all kinds of abstract specifications of the semantics will fail. Mats Weber Swiss Federal Institute of Technology EPFL DI LITh 1015 Lausanne Switzerland e-mail : madmats@elcit.epfl.ch phone : +41 21 693 42 43