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,a77baf86c187076a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Garbage collection (was a spinoff of a spinoff of a GA diatribe) Date: 1996/10/30 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 193767561 references: <9610211427.AA06636@most> organization: New York University newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-10-30T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: iJon said "Well, 1) I used "can" specifically because I didn't want to assert "are". 2) If you never need to collect, you will not even execute 1 instruction the entire run (let alone 1 for each free). 3) You can write such very efficient "free"s even within the language - just roll your own allocator (which is what I believe happens in real-time contexts actually requiring "heap" style allocation). 4) we were not talking about these sort of special "free"s..." What do you mean "special frees", I was talking about the absolutely standard free routine, accessed by the built-in routine unchecked_deallocation in the Alsys compiler, not something I added on (Jon, perhaps you don't know, but I worked for years for Alsys, and quite a bit of the x86 (x = 2 and 3) runtime work was my code, including the allocator!)