Re: Bug in GNAT? - Max_size_in_storage_elements insufficient

[Vratislav Podzimek <vratislav.podzimek@gmail.com>]

On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 14:35:15 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

> On 18/10/2016 13:17, Vratislav Podzimek wrote:
> 
>> Or am I missing something?
> 
> A storage pool requires additional space to organize its structure and
> maintain its state. Depending on the method it is usually impossible to
> estimate the exact number of object  the pool may hold. It depends on
> the individual sizes of the objects, the history of object's allocation
> and deallocation, the history of claiming the memory for the parts of
> the pool from the OS (a pool can be segmented).

Well, then it's at least a bug in [Barnes] because there's an example 
like the above ones just with a simpler type. But I still think the idea 
here is/was to provide enough space for N items of some type. That's what 
the 'Max_size_in_storage_elements' attribute should be good for. And 
there's no fragmentation nor history of allocation/deallocation in my 
case. If I specify I want space for 4 records, I should get space for 4 
records. Not slightly less due to some hidden, unpredictable overhead.