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,b307bd75c8071241 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: newbie Q: storage management Date: 1997/05/08 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 240123247 Distribution: world Organization: PSI Public Usenet Link Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-05-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert sez: > I would not talk about straw-man implementations, I would talk about > real usable implementations. It is much more important that > something be real and usable, than it is that it be in the > standard. Agreed. This has never been in question, IMO. > If someone did a nice GC implementation for GNAT, and people started > using it, then a lot of the problem is solved. False. You can pretty much get something like this now using a bolt on fully conservative collector. As you note, portability between compilers is a significant part of the problem. As I've noted before, this alone would make the above scenario irrelevant for us (and we're someone who really wants GC!) But that is not all. There are support issues, synchronization issues with GNAT releases, platform portability issues, etc. At the moment, wrt GNAT, the only plausible way for these issues to be sorted out would be if the "someone" mentioned above turned out to be ACT. /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com