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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,419864ed91cc937d X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.bt.com!news.bt.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 04:37:47 -0500 From: Brian Drummond Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: heap size exceeded for large matrices Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 10:45:35 +0100 Reply-To: brian@shapes.demon.co.uk Message-ID: References: <14007b1b-c290-4c73-a0ec-d3c5195b83d4@t20g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> <4c7a360b$0$10227$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr> <340c87af-1f15-4590-baa9-ec7e864b7048@l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> <4c7ada3c$0$2372$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net> <7bol761eas8q6evpsar3kbu57fnihm7q3k@4ax.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-AuthenticatedUsername: NoAuthUser X-Trace: sv3-oQx5WH8fQgMPhuDa6YyjM09EVjS7KgIrNUTUa5wwHaAO48XOuCg99T6iINtqP1B6zuXspte5WGZ0Tnz!b4QhPeR/ednHL2wLDr4Rr194E6slA7/SOOxdoU8hWQE+Ycn9e/3vdQ7kPyrVzQEUS+6GVSx4z8rA!bw== X-Complaints-To: abuse@btinternet.com X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@btinternet.com X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:13841 Date: 2010-08-30T10:45:35+01:00 List-Id: On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 23:47:09 +0100, Brian Drummond wrote: >On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 18:06:46 -0400, "Peter C. Chapin" wrote: >>Be aware that you may now have to explicitly deallocate the array at >>some point. How necessary that is will depend on your program and some >>other factors. It's something to keep in mind. > >..., so the intended lifetime is the block itself. >It seems that the deallocation in this case could be automated - and in crude >tests enclosing the block in a loop I couldn't see memory use increasing with >time ... perhaps this is not the case, I wasn't looking carefully enough? Apologies to all: My late night recollection was faulty; my experiment covered a different case. If the "new" allocation is in a loop, explicit deallocation (or possibly controlled types - I haven't tried them yet) is required. - Brian