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.898440019@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 364717363
References: <358444BA.757121D8@cl.cam.ac.uk>
 <1998061518584100.OAA28557@ladder01.news.aol.com>
 <35865075.9D7DCBD@cl.cam.ac.uk> <35885BE1.B1CE0503@elca-matrix.ch>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu
X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 898440057 16241 (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>


Mats said

<<It is true that Ada 83 lacks specification in that respect (e.g.
Unchecked_Deallocation is not forced to do anything but set the pointer to
null). I do not know exactly what Ada 95 has to say on memory leaks for
stack-implementable constructs.
>>

It is in fact almost impossible to define formally when SE can or cannot
be raised, since it depends on implementation models which can vary
widely. But this does not mean that storage leaks are not a bug!