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 Path: buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.erje.net!1.eu.feeder.erje.net!gandalf.srv.welterde.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!loke.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Dynamic allocation in the predefined language environment Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 15:28:45 -0500 Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation Message-ID: References: <559a623d$0$293$14726298@news.sunsite.dk><873811cre5.fsf@theworld.com><559a8d12$0$297$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <87y4itbb0z.fsf@theworld.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: rrsoftware.com X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1436214526 18563 24.196.82.226 (6 Jul 2015 20:28:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 20:28:46 +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 Xref: number.nntp.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:193967 Date: 2015-07-06T15:28:45-05:00 List-Id: "Bob Duff" wrote in message news:87y4itbb0z.fsf@theworld.com... > Matthias-Christian Ott writes: ... > Anyway, your original complaint (that the language doesn't let you > choose the storage pool used for containers) is quite correct. > I think it was considered, but I don't remember the details. The problem was that it isn't very useful unless one very seriously constrains how the implementation can implement the containers. Without such constraints, any pattern of allocations has to be supported (as the implementation of the container could do anything), whereas most of the interesting storage pools put some sorts of limits on the sizes and/or numbers of allocations to get more deterministic memory management than the default storage pool. The original consideration was an alternative to the bounded containers for deterministic memory management, and allowing user-defined storage pools didn't really help with that. Thus they were not pursued further for Ada 2012. There are other possible uses, of course, and perhaps we'll revisit this someday (they came up briefly during the recent ARG meeting, although I forget why). Randy.