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-Thread: 103376,4bd6ca8f7a1eb225
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Received: by 10.68.35.68 with SMTP id f4mr2995529pbj.5.1322029228572;
        Tue, 22 Nov 2011 22:20:28 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 lh20ni8023pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!e2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Class with task destructor
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 22:14:34 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <bf5f741b-8ced-4530-8090-df6d4e730a5e@e2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
References: <30604696.94.1322013045135.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqzz20>
 <80027d05-2740-4899-b43a-514100ec9bd2@p16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
 <op.v5du1eh0ule2fv@douda-yannick>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.4.246.214
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1322029228 28282 127.0.0.1 (23 Nov 2011 06:20:28
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 06:20:28 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: e2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=68.4.246.214;
 posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-Google-Web-Client: true
X-Google-Header-Order: ARLUEHNKC
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
 Trident/4.0; SLCC2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR
 3.0.30729; Media Center PC 6.0; HPDTDF; BRI/1; .NET4.0C; BRI/2;
 AskTbARS/5.12.2.16749),gzip(gfe)
Xref: news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19062
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: 2011-11-22T22:14:34-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Nov 22, 9:04=A0pm, Yannick Duch=EAne (Hibou57)
<yannick_duch...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> Le Wed, 23 Nov 2011 03:44:39 +0100, Adam Beneschan <a...@irvine.com> a
> =E9crit:> The language rules say that Unchecked_Deallocation doesn't forc=
e tasks
> > to terminate.
>
> But it should, because unless I missed something, it seems in this exampl=
e
> case at least, this lead to a dangling reference.

*Any* use of Unchecked_Deallocation can lead to a dangling reference,
which is why it's called Unchecked.  But also note that the language
explicitly says that if you use Unchecked_Deallocation on an object
that contains tasks, the object might not actually disappear
(13.11.2(9)).  I'm not sure if there are language rules that say that
the object *must* not be deallocated immediately in a case like this,
where the task has a discriminant that refers to the object being
freed.  I don't have time to look into it at the moment.  Maybe
someone else knows?

                           -- Adam