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,aa968038a51ee866
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Q: Ada.Unchecked_Deallocation
Date: 1996/07/21
Message-ID: <DuwMr3.8Ev@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 170627369
references: <31E5D4D1.11DB36E1@jinx.sckans.edu> <4s5j6fINN3pj@faatcrl.faa.gov>
 <dewar.837270488@schonberg>
organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-07-21T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <dewar.837270488@schonberg>, Robert Dewar <dewar@cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>Our current view in GNAT is *not* to automatically free such storage
>by default (allowing for this automatic free adds quite a bit of
>overhead, which may not be needed in many cases). We plan to provide a storage 
>pool option that will allow this automatic freeing if it is what you want.
>Gven that Ada 95 provides the control of storage pools, this seems the
>most reasonable approach.

Why does GNAT have to provide anything beyond what the language
provides?  It seems to me that you can easily use user-defined storage
pools to make this kind of self-cleaning heap.  Are you just saying that
GNAT will provide such a thing in a library package?  It doesn't seem
like any extra pragmas or options are needed.

- Bob