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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,3498dd887729ed19
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: rogoff@sccm.Stanford.EDU (Brian Rogoff)
Subject: Re: Garbage Collection in Ada
Date: 1996/10/22
Message-ID: <ROGOFF.96Oct22102837@sccm.Stanford.EDU>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 191275147
organization: /u/rogoff/.organization
reply-to: rogoff@sccm.stanford.edu
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-10-22T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
   It's certainly on the list as a future possible enhancement, in fact we
   have done quite a bit of work studying the issue of whether we can provide
   a special garbage collected storage pool.

I recall reading a paper on an Ada 95 ODMG binding in which Storage_Pool was 
replaced by a 'Storage_Manager' which could map access types to machine 
addresses and back, and an attribute defined to get this Storage_Manager for 
any access. The goal was persistence, but the scheme could be used for GCed 
accesses too. The idea seemed interesting; what are the pitfalls?

-- Brian