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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,fdc38a13551814d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-1.proxad.net!club-internet.fr!feedme-small.clubint.net!nuzba.szn.dk!news.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Allocators and memory reclamation
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:07:36 -0600
Organization: Jacob's private Usenet server
Message-ID: <fnln92$2qu$1@jacob-sparre.dk>
References: 
 <4a2fe64e-ae34-4093-88ec-1dc612a9adbd@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
 <lneim0ua86uj$.5q4owyndn3kj$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: jacob-sparre.dk 1201561698 2910 69.95.181.76 (28 Jan 2008 23:08:18
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 23:08:18 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1914
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1914
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19641
Date: 2008-01-28T17:07:36-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message
news:lneim0ua86uj$.5q4owyndn3kj$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 05:49:35 -0800 (PST), Maciej Sobczak wrote:
...
> > Another question relates to the order of finalizing objects. If the
> > storage pool is torn down when the access type goes out of scope, is
> > the order of finalizing objects guaranteed?
>
> AFAIK, it is not. Why should it be?

I have no idea what Dmitry is talking about. The language does require
finalization of objects when the owning access type goes out of scope.
(Another good reason to avoid conversions between access types!)

In particular, read 7.6.1(11/2) [which defines "finalization of the
collection".] Note that there is no requirement of an order on the
particular allocators, only that they all get finalized at the point of the
type declaration (in reverse, of course).

                           Randy.