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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,345a8b767542016e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-03-20 09:56:12 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!news-out.spamkiller.net!propagator-la!news-in-la.newsfeeds.com!newsfeed.onecall.net!chcgil2-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!news.binc.net!kilgallen
From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: memory leakages with Ada?
Date: 20 Mar 2002 11:56:04 -0600
Organization: LJK Software
Message-ID: <FEQ$qP36pYsC@eisner.encompasserve.org>
References: <3c90af1e@news.starhub.net.sg> <a6r075$7ei$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <3c91bfa3.1987537@news.demon.co.uk> <a6svum$5u8$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <3C9629E3.8030109@home.com> <3C9645DD.4020006@mail.com>
 <X1Rimexgm78R@eisner.encompasserve.org> <3C9659B6.6030204@mail.com>
 <q7PsYjF1oyYV@eisner.encompasserve.org> <3C97E496.20404@mail.com>
 <3C98C195.2030705@home.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org
X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1016646966 24946 192.135.80.34 (20 Mar 2002
 17:56:06 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 17:56:06 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:21495
Date: 2002-03-20T11:56:04-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <3C98C195.2030705@home.com>, "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@home.com> writes:
> Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
>> Larry Kilgallen wrote:
>> 
>>> That code snippet _is_ in the caller's frame.  Uppercase is the
>>> function being called.  The bytes do get copied (obviously) to
>>> the caller's frame, but what you see above is the entire syntax
>>> for doing that.
>> 
>> Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to say!
>> My point was that in the various C techniques,
>> the bytes of the result get constructed once,
>> and then don't have to be copied as part of
>> the function return, whereas returning a String
>> in Ada will involve copying the bytes.
> 
> This can be a performance issue if the string is huge. But for
> mundane strings, the cost of copying it is much cheaper than the
> malloc/free cost, for example.

Certainly for huge strings, more attention to performance is required.
In programs with which I deal, however, huge data structures are quite
outnumbered by tiny data structures.  Ignoring performance on the tiny
ones leaves more time to worry about performance on the hugh ones.