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,d02eb5c33ac65d9
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-03-10 04:06:08 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn14feed!wn13feed!wn12feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Jeffrey Creem" <jeff@thecreems.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
References: <slrnb6m8mg.15o.randhol+news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <2397C8D4BA396B7A.ADB0E590CE8E5EAE.1C7AEC9AFCA7BE12@lp.airnews.net>
 <slrnb6mbnv.8a1.randhol+news@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <b4fftn$o3b$1@slb2.atl.mindspring.net> <x6Saa.25310$eG2.4454@sccrnsc03>
 <b4huit$crl$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>
Subject: Re: Array and memory usage
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Message-ID: <Gc%aa.33173$sf5.22471@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.31.5.146
X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com
X-Trace: rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net 1047297958 66.31.5.146 (Mon,
 10 Mar 2003 12:05:58 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:05:58 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 12:06:03 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:35119
Date: 2003-03-10T12:06:03+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


"Marin David Condic" <mcondic.auntie.spam@acm.org> wrote in message
news:b4huit$crl$1@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> They're all "Quality Of Implementation" issues :-)
>
stuff deleted
> different contexts. If you declare the record globally, you'd like for
that
> global memory to be statically initialized and your load image just has
the
> bits set the way you want them. But what about when the record is
allocated
more stuff deleted..


Note that again in this particular case, no one has shown that the compiler
did not statically initialize this memory. I suspect this data is indeed
initialized within the initialized data segment of the elf file. The OS is
not showing the memory as used since the process has yet to refer to that
section of  address space.

Everything that is happening sounds consistent with an OS with commit-on-use
semantics.

Nothing that has been presented looked like any sort of dynamic elaboration
(not mentioned in e-mail I am replying to but I believe it was part of this
thread perhaps from a different poster) or any such strange concept.