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: 2002-03-16 06:39:03 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.stealth.net!news.stealth.net!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr11.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Pat Rogers" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <3c90af1e@news.starhub.net.sg> <3c91bfa3.1987537@news.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: memory leakages with Ada? X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.191.177.131 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr11.news.prodigy.com 1016289512 ST000 208.191.177.131 (Sat, 16 Mar 2002 09:38:32 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 09:38:32 EST Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com X-UserInfo1: Q[R_PJSCTS@USVT^ORHL_IXBUSXHQD\MNPWZKB]MPXH@ETUCCNSKQFCY@TXDX_WHSVB]ZEJLSNY\^J[CUVSA_QLFC^RQHUPH[P[NRWCCMLSNPOD_ESALHUK@TDFUZHBLJ\XGKL^NXA\EVHSP[D_C^B_^JCX^W]CHBAX]POG@SSAZQ\LE[DCNMUPG_VSC@VJM Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 14:38:32 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:21332 Date: 2002-03-16T14:38:32+00:00 List-Id: "DPH" wrote in message news:s3369uo70srjh7m4pjkgt6n4kpt88hdeb8@4ax.com... > On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 12:55:19 GMT, "Pat Rogers" > wrote: > > >"John McCabe" wrote in message > >news:3c91bfa3.1987537@news.demon.co.uk... > >> On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 15:12:21 -0500, "Marin David Condic" > >> wrote: > >> > >> >In comparing Ada to C on this there are two observations: One is that Ada > >> >provides a different model for dynamic allocation than does C that includes, > >> >among other things, a lot more checks/safety features to minimize the > >> >possibility of lost memory. (Still, the standard doesn't require garbage > >> >collection so you can still leak memory if you mess things up.) It isn't > >> >impossible to leak memory in Ada - just less likely. > >> > >> One of the things I've found recently, since starting to use C++ more, > >> is that Ada.UncheckedDeallocation is so much nicer than 'delete' as it > >> returns you a nice, null pointer! 'delete' in C++ appears to remove > >> the allocated block, but leave your pointer pointing to where it used > >> to be! > > > >Although there are several things I really like about C++, one of the things > >that I find shocking is that the programmer must remember to use a very slightly > >different syntax when calling delete on an allocated array, and that the other > >syntax will also compile and run -- and at the very least leak. (I understand > >the reason for this, don't bother to explain why; it still stinks!) That isn't > >the only such example, of course, but one that I find amazing. > > > >For example, the following is perfectly legal and wrong : > > > >char* p = new char[n]; > >delete p; > > > >I have to remember to say: > > > >delete[] p; > > No you don't... you just write it with Borland C++ Builder 5 or better > with CodeGuard turned on, and CodeGuard will complain about it all > over the place. But then why can't the compiler do that?