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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-FeedAbuse: http://nntpfeed.proxad.net/abuse.pl feeded by 78.192.65.63
Path: 
 border1.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border4.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!213.200.89.86.MISMATCH!news1.as3257.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!nntpfeed.proxad.net!news.muarf.org!news.ecp.fr!news.jacob-sparre.dk!loke.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Questions on Storage Pools
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 16:02:09 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <kue6sh$4nh$1@loke.gir.dk>
References: <90b5c304-417e-4303-931c-e86d34e17541@googlegroups.com>
 <c7573456-e37d-43f4-ab44-e1b37ade914d@googlegroups.com>
 <988e9ddb-e58a-4d52-9b43-71a080890dd4@googlegroups.com>
 <b59a8382-d34e-47d6-8c29-290b1683ac3b@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1376427730 4849 69.95.181.76 (13 Aug 2013 21:02:10 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 21:02:10 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
X-Original-Bytes: 2792
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:183007
Date: 2013-08-13T16:02:09-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Adam Beneschan" <adambeneschan@aol.com> wrote in message 
news:b59a8382-d34e-47d6-8c29-290b1683ac3b@googlegroups.com...
On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 12:36:08 PM UTC-7, AdaMagica wrote:
...
>> If there is Storage_Size, the storage will be freed. If there is none, 
>> the storage
>> remains allocated (with finalized objects inside). Correct?
>
>I believe this is correct, although off the top of my head I think that if 
>there's no
>Storage_Size clause, the implementation is still allowed to deallocate the 
>storage if it chooses.
>
>But yes, when the end of the block is reached, the three 
>not-yet-deallocated objects should
>be finalized.  In fact, if you remove the Free call, then when the end of 
>the block is reached,
>all four objects should have Finalized called on them, even though one of 
>those objects now
>has nothing pointing to it.
>
>At least I think this is still correct.  Some relevant paragraphs got 
>changed in Ada 2012.
> I don't think they affect your example, but I'm planning to look more 
> carefully.

The reason that the wording changed was that anonymous access types were 
poorly specified if the designated object was finalizable. We needed to say 
where that finalization would happen. There was no intent to change any 
behavior of named access types, and I believe that your explanation is 
correct.

                                            Randy.