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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,56131a5c3acc678e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-12-03 04:49:22 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!priapus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!skynet.be!skynet.be!louie!tjb!not-for-mail
Sender: lbrenta@lbrenta
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Question about OO programming in Ada
References: <bq092s$9ph$1@online.de> <uhe0sqfud.fsf@nasa.gov>
 <bq0qfs$3ja$1@online.de> <GpednY19wYJAdFmiRVn-gg@comcast.com>
 <bq3mef$49e$1@online.de>
 <8urxb.19482$sb4.18182@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <ygAxb.8265$lF6.7551@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>
 <1792884.HtYz4Yv8lY@linux1.krischik.com>
 <bhjosvgrsg4mokscld2057arufu8pv1ndn@4ax.com> <uhe0idzbm.fsf@wanadoo.fr>
 <mghrsvguffpi8v7m6vamr8k4j38j8ufvkp@4ax.com>
From: Ludovic Brenta <ludovic.brenta@insalien.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3
Date: 03 Dec 2003 13:49:20 +0100
Message-ID: <m3y8tut6b3.fsf@insalien.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: -= Belgacom Usenet Service =-
NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.136.20.187
X-Trace: 1070455761 reader4.news.skynet.be 280 217.136.20.187:46288
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@skynet.be
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3092
Date: 2003-12-03T13:49:20+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:

> On 03 Dec 2003 10:29:17 +0100, Pascal Obry <p.obry@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> 
> >
> >Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
> >
> >> All controlled objects allocated by the allocator new, being not
> >> explicity destroyed using Unchecked_Deallocation, will be destroyed
> >> upon finalization of the access type.
> >
> >There is no magic done by Finalize here! Finalize gives a chance to the
> >component implementer to do the memory deallocation for the end user. That's
> >all.
> 
> Yes, you are right. Controlled objects will be finalized, but the
> memory might be not reclaimed. At least, it seems that ARM does not
> require that.

I am confused.  I thought that the storage would be reclaimed when the
access type went out of scope, but I tested it with GNAT 3.15p and it
isn't.  Granted, the ARM doesn't seem to require it, but GNAT has the
following in its reference manual:

    *53*.  The manner of choosing a storage pool for an access type
    when `Storage_Pool' is not specified for the type.  See 13.11(17).

    There are 3 different standard pools used by the compiler when
    `Storage_Pool' is not specified depending whether the type is
    local to a subprogram or defined at the library level and whether
    `Storage_Size'is specified or not.  See documentation in the
    runtime library units `System.Pool_Global', `System.Pool_Size' and
    `System.Pool_Local' in files `s-poosiz.ads', `s-pooglo.ads' and
    `s-pooloc.ads' for full details on the default pools used.

And in s-pooloc.ads it says:

   ----------------------------
   -- Unbounded_Reclaim_Pool --
   ----------------------------

   --  Allocation strategy:

   --    Call to malloc/free for each Allocate/Deallocate
   --    no user specifiable size
   --    Space of allocated objects is reclaimed at pool finalization
   --    Manages a list of allocated objects

   --  Default pool in the compiler for access types locally declared

   type Unbounded_Reclaim_Pool is new [...]

I tried to run a test program in gnatgdb but couldn't check what the
storage pool actually was.  Would anyone care to shed some light on
this?  Now I'm really curious.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.