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: 103376,133de21eb82605b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: How do functions return unbounded arrays?
Date: 1998/06/21
Message-ID: <dewar.898439670@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 364717359
References: <358444BA.757121D8@cl.cam.ac.uk>
 <1998061518584100.OAA28557@ladder01.news.aol.com>
 <35865075.9D7DCBD@cl.cam.ac.uk> <m3ium0yi4r.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu
X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 898439694 16188 (None) 128.122.140.58
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-06-21T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Markus said

<<> Thanks for that example. That is exactly an implementation of
> of my bad gut feeling about the lack of a clear description in
> the RM that guarantees me when these secretly allocated heap
> blocks will be deallocated. Some guarantee that whatever a variable
> length function return secretly allocates does not survive the next
> semicolon would be very reassuring, otherwise programmers have
> little idea about what memory leaks their code might contain and
> this could be a safety risk.
>>


Any kind of dynamic allocation is a safety risk for most safety
critical purposes!