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: 103376,2866100c9a2b8ce7 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Free'ing extended types Date: 1996/04/28 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 151915936 references: <3183AC75.335C@ehs.ericsson.se> organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-04-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Jonas said " So there's nothing that could lead to an erroneous execution (note the X.all'access, the libc then does what's needed)." You seem to have the wrong idea of what erroneous is about. An erroneous execution is one whose semantics is not specified by the reference manual. You seem to think this means that it wlil blow up or do something wrong. Not at all! It *may* blow up but it does not have to! You can look at the execution of a particular impementation and conclude that a particular erroneous execution will have no ill effect on that implementation, but that does not mean that the exeution is not erroneous! This is one of these places where no amount of testing can help, only a detailed knowledge of the formal semantics of the refrence manual can tell you if a given execution is indeed erroneous -- it is not something you can (necessarily) observe.