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: 2002-03-15 04:56:07 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!newssvr30.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: newssvr30.news.prodigy.com 1016196919 ST000 208.191.177.131 (Fri, 15 Mar 2002 07:55:19 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 07:55:19 EST Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com X-UserInfo1: FKPO@SJGTZYQBQXYQ[OD]_HBWB]^PCPDLXUNNHLIWIWTEPIB_NVUAH_[BL[\IRKIANGGJBFNJF_DOLSCENSY^U@FRFUEXR@KFXYDBPWBCDQJA@X_DCBHXR[C@\EOKCJLED_SZ@RMWYXYWE_P@\\GOIW^@SYFFSWHFIXMADO@^[ADPRPETLBJ]RDGENSKQQZN Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 12:55:19 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:21281 Date: 2002-03-15T12:55:19+00:00 List-Id: "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; I'm not saying Ada is perfect, so let's nobody start the language wars please, but Ada is clearly better in this regard. --- Patrick Rogers Consulting and Training in: http://www.classwide.com Real-Time/OO Languages progers@classwide.com Hard Deadline Schedulability Analysis (281)648-3165 Software Fault Tolerance