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: 103376,89cbee942992178a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Deallocating Task objects
Date: 1997/02/15
Message-ID: <dewar.856037807@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 219043604
References: <01bc1b53$fb0251c0$829d6482@joy.ericsson.se>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-02-15T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Jonas asks

<<I wonder if somebody can confirm that my interpretation of this sentence
is correct. Below I have attached a small tasking example with one
Main_Task that dynamically allocates Sub_Tasks and I want to be absolutely
sure that the storage used for the Sub_Tasks have been reclaimed when the
Main_Task instance, A_Main_Task, goes out of scope.
>>

I would not call this garbage collectoin in any sense. it is more like
the PL/1 area concept. Note that you can trivially do something like
this yourself by using the storage pools mechanism. Indeed the way this
is accomplished at least in GNAt is precisely by using the storage pools
mechanism.