Re: Legit Warnings or not

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Robert A Duff" <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote in message 
news:wccipqtawza.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com...
> "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:
...
>>...because there is no good
>> reason not to support this as the default (as noted, some target
>> environments might not want such objects, and pragma Restrictions can 
>> surely
>> be used to prevent them from being generated). But apparently, 
>> implementers
>> are lazy enough to avoid it, and customers have never pushed hard enough 
>> to
>> get it added as an option.
>
> I don't think it was laziness.  It was an honest belief that implicit
> heap allocation is evil.

You'd still have to do that to return unconstrained objects, to declare 
dynamically sized objects, and probably other things as well. (I realize 
that some implementations have gone to heroic lengths -- wasting large 
amounts of address space for an extra stack -- to avoid using heap 
allocation for that -- but it is essentially the same mechanism, and heap 
allocations have a decided advantage of not wasting any address space [a 
critical need on our early 16-bit targets]). So I don't think you can 
implement Ada without some sort of implicit memory allocation, so I fail to 
see any good reason to avoid it in this one particular case. And in any 
case, there is a restriction which would force a compiler to reject any such 
allocations -- why make life harder for everyone that doesn't need that 
restriction?

                                 Randy.