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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,42a57c8ee023f14d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: stt@henning.camb.inmet.com (Tucker Taft) Subject: Re: Q: memory management Date: 1996/06/18 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 160869441 sender: news@inmet.camb.inmet.com (USENET news) x-nntp-posting-host: henning.camb.inmet.com references: organization: Intermetrics, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-06-18T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Hannes Haug (Hannes.Haug@Student.Uni-Tuebingen.de) wrote: : >>>>> "TT" == Tucker Taft writes: : TT> This should work. The storage pool would be specified via : TT> Some_Access_Type'Storage_Pool where Some_Access_Type is any : TT> access type declared at the library level. It would be safest : TT> if the access type had an unconstrained designated subtype, : TT> such as: : TT> type Some_Access_Type is access all String; : TT> to avoid the implementation-chosen storage pool from being one : TT> that only works on access collections of uniformly-sized : TT> objects. : Let's be e little bit pedantic. The size of such an array is always > 0, : even if the length is 0. The bounds have to be stored somewhere. So what : happens if I want to allocate a piece of memory that is smaller than such : an array of length 0 ? Perhaps the storage pool doesn't handle such small : pieces. It's just a theoretical problem, of course. Solution: You implement your own storage pool. Which probably ends up calling "malloc" or some even lower level operation. That's what happens when you start getting too theoretical ;-). : - hannes -Tucker Taft stt@inmet.com http://www.inmet.com/~stt/ Intermetrics, Inc. Cambridge, MA USA