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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,edd7ea1b2d7e9a18 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-02-13 22:29:51 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsmi-us.news.garr.it!NewsITBone-GARR!news.mailgate.org!fr.usenet-edu.net!usenet-edu.net!enst.fr!not-for-mail From: "Grein, Christoph" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Pitfall: freeing access discriminants Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 07:21:40 +0100 (MET) Organization: ENST, France Message-ID: Reply-To: "Grein, Christoph" , "comp.lang.ada mail to news gateway" NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin.enst.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: avanie.enst.fr 1045204190 84866 137.194.161.2 (14 Feb 2003 06:29:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@enst.fr NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 06:29:50 +0000 (UTC) To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Return-Path: X-Authentication-Warning: mail.eurocopter.com: uucp set sender to using -f Content-MD5: tiauafA8vw+4y8X9tZQg3Q== X-Mailer: dtmail 1.2.1 CDE Version 1.2.1 SunOS 5.6 sun4u sparc X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1 Precedence: list List-Id: comp.lang.ada mail to news gateway List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:34088 Date: 2003-02-14T07:21:40+01:00 > > type Integer_Ptr is access all Integer; > >... > > P: Integer_Ptr := Integer_Ptr (Object.D); > According to Cohen 2nd ed p 361, Integer_Ptr cannot be a pool-specific > access type. And how would you make the anonymous access type > "D: access Integer" allocate from other than the standard pool? There are some statements in the AARM that you have to deallocate with an access ess type that has the same storage pool as the one the object was allocated with. Without specifying that two access types accessing the same type actually use the same pool (via specifying the pool of the second access type: "for P2'Storage_Pool use P1'Storage_Pools;" - not sure of the syntax), you rely on the mercy of the compiler implementers. You might experience the nasal demons effect...