Re: Have the Itanium critics all been proven wrong?

[Bill Findlay <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>]

On 22/08/2012 16:06, in article k12shq$4ii$1@dont-email.me, "Brian Drummond"
<brian@shapes.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 07:00:31 -0700, Michael S wrote:
> 
>> On Aug 22, 3:39�pm, Brian Drummond <br...@shapes.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 03:32:00 -0700, Michael S wrote:
> 
> [... discussion of private types exported to module A from B]
>>> This puts B in charge of the object lifetimes; if A wants to access a
>>> stale object, expect an exception.
>> 
>> Exception, if I am lucky.
>> If I am less lucky, the physical place of old auto object is now
>> occupied by new auto object of the same or compatible type and the call
>> to accessor caused silent corruption.
> 
> If a module has exported a pointer to an "auto object" then the
> accessibility checks have been circumvented by unchecked_access or
> unchecked_conversion. In which case ... yes, caveat programmer!
> 
> Pointers passed from a module will generally be to static or dynamic
> objects. Which, if dynamic, can be freed by unchecked_deallocation.
> Again : caveat programmer.

Worth pointing out that access types /cannot/ point to auto objects unless
declared as "access all", and in Ada it is unusual to do so, as pointers to
non-heap objects are very much less needed than in other languages.

-- 
Bill Findlay
with blueyonder.co.uk;
use  surname & forename;