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,f1111f1bf805022b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: tmoran@bix.com Subject: Re: Unconstrained type Unchecked_Deallocation Date: 2000/03/06 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 593927850 References: <8a0h55$qc5$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@pacbell.net X-Trace: news.pacbell.net 952371110 206.170.2.164 (Mon, 06 Mar 2000 11:31:50 PST) Organization: SBC Internet Services NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 11:31:50 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-03-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: >> The real question is will the Free procedure deallocate all the bytes >> allocated with the following? >Of course. If not, your compiler is seriously broken! The real question is why the questioner started on the assumption that Unchecked_Deallocation didn't work in a standard situation, but but was happily accepted by the compiler in that situation. With most Ada compilers, it's better to start on the assumption the compiler, as well as the language, was not designed by amateurs. If you think something is broken, try it with a test program. If that proves it is in fact broken, then it's reasonable to ask (perhaps on c.l.a.) if the error is in the compiler or the language.