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!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!xylogics!merk!alliant!linus!linus!eachus From: eachus@linus.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Implicit garbage collection in Ada systems Message-ID: Date: 4 Jan 91 18:36:52 GMT References: <9101021952.AA03454@papasun.mcs.anl.gov> Sender: usenet@linus.mitre.org Organization: The Mitre Corporation, Bedford, MA Nntp-Posting-Host: aries.mitre.org In-reply-to: dritz@ANTARES.MCS.ANL.GOV's message of 2 Jan 91 19:52:00 GMT List-Id: A very hard question to answer for two reasons. First, no one would want an Ada compiler which used garbage collection for everything, and most compilers do some garbage collection (but leave compaction to the operating system). Let's try to qualifiy your question as follows: Does any Ada compiler provide a data type (or class of data types) for which accessability is tracked and automatic garbage collection and compaction are provided? Oops! Task types in many compilers fit this category. The second reason is that there are Ada compilers for several systems where garbage collection is normally a function of the operating system: Symbolics, Rational, Intel 432 (High Integrity Systems), etc. Also some embedded compilers provide for user implemented run-times which could transparently provide garbage collection. My guess is that the Symbolics implementation is probably a sufficient counterexample to encourage you to use the milder sentence. (Even though it can be argued both ways. Please! No flames, I'm just trying to say that question is not subject to a yes or no answer.) -- Robert I. Eachus with STANDARD_DISCLAIMER; use STANDARD_DISCLAIMER; function MESSAGE (TEXT: in CLEVER_IDEAS) return BETTER_IDEAS is...