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,c50f57c0c29b391b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.belwue.de!informatik.tu-muenchen.de!lrz.de!not-for-mail From: Thomas Maier-Komor Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: memory management Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 17:42:48 +0200 Organization: [posted via] Leibniz-Rechenzentrum, Muenchen (Germany) Message-ID: References: <1131064.rs72P29t4t@yahoo.com> <1226363.QsRZW1KHie@linux1.krischik.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: aquila.lpr.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: wsc10.lrz-muenchen.de 1117726968 16724 129.187.151.60 (2 Jun 2005 15:42:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@lrz-muenchen.de NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Jun 2005 15:42:48 GMT User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS sun4u; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20050105 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11215 Date: 2005-06-02T15:42:48+00:00 List-Id: Robert A Duff wrote: > The same is true of pointers in C and C++ -- an implementation is free > to implement pointers as something other than a machine address. In > fact, if a C compiler wishes to check array bounds, it pretty much *has* > to use fat pointers. I know of one C compiler that did just that. My > point is that "pointer" is not synonymous with "single machine address", > even in C. > That's definetly an interesting implementation variant for the C language. Could you tell us, which compiler did this? Has this been documented anywhere? TIA, Tom