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,HEADER_SPAM
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,b30bd69fa8f63cb2
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: fc772,b30bd69fa8f63cb2
X-Google-Attributes: gidfc772,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-15 02:59:07 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!uwm.edu!rpi!not-for-mail
From: LLeweLLyn <llewelly.at@xmission.dot.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++.moderated
Subject: Re: C bug of the day
Date: 15 Jun 2003 06:01:22 -0400
Organization: The Illusory Sorting Algorithm
Sender: cppmods@netlab.cs.rpi.edu
Message-ID: <m1smqci1lm.fsf@xmission.dot.com>
References: <1054751321.434656@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
  <memo.20030605193115.9141A@brangdon.madasafish.com>
  <d6652001.0306100323.338a2a1c@posting.google.com>
  <Xns9396BDBB14558jimmaureenrogers@204.127.36.1>
  <d6652001.0306120418.37a97d1c@posting.google.com>
  <aR-dndOs-OCJdXWjXTWcoA@gbronline.com>
  <m1r85yrlo6.fsf@xmission.dot.com>
  <l1n0gkd5eg.fsf@budvar.future-i.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: netlab.cs.rpi.edu
X-Original-Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 19:14:13 -0600
X-Submission-Address: c++-submit@netlab.cs.rpi.edu
X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.lang.c++.moderated
	iQBVAwUAPuxD7kHMCo9UcraBAQGZPAH/eYXOyw6sJYwqh9Dw3j3n/UeByFYF9Cdm
	9eMefh15HgOFPwfW6OvFqc44ipMCUakyJ4WdZuwdNWlSzAzOYQfXHw==
	=TYGf
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:39192 comp.lang.c++.moderated:68385
Date: 2003-06-15T06:01:22-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Ed Avis <ed@membled.com> writes:

 > LLeweLLyn <llewelly.at@xmission.dot.com> writes:
 >
 >>>In Ada, GC is automatic for stack variables,
 >
 >>In C++ GC is automatic for stack variables as well
 >
 > I think this is abusing the term 'garbage collection', consider:
 >
 >     int* f()
 >     {
 >         int x = 5;
 >         return &x;
 >     }

As far as I can see, I abused the term 'garbage collection' exactly as
     much as Wesley did. Ada has no more (and no less) garbage
     collection here than C++ does. In both cases, stack variables are
     deallocated at the end of the function or subprogram. What Ada
     does have is checked accesibilty rules that prevent returning a
     pointer to a local object.

 >
 > If C++ really did have garbage collection for stack variables, then x
 > would not be destroyed on exit from the function since there is still
 > a live pointer to it.  What C++ has is something much cruder - any
 > stack variable is destroyed on exit from the scope it was declared in.
 >
 > You could say 'C++ does have garbage collection for stack variables,
 > you're just not allowed to return pointers or references to them', but
 > that amounts to the same thing.

Yes. And it amounts to being equivalent to Wesley's statement.


      [ Send an empty e-mail to c++-help@netlab.cs.rpi.edu for info ]
      [ about comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: do this! ]