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,b2dd3ff35d68d825 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-04-10 08:04:32 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.vmunix.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!82-43-33-254.cable.ubr01.croy.blueyonder.co.UK!not-for-mail From: Nick Roberts Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Unchecked_Deallocation subtleties Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 16:04:38 +0100 Organization: ThoughtWing Computer Software Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 82-43-33-254.cable.ubr01.croy.blueyonder.co.uk (82.43.33.254) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1049987070 11489545 82.43.33.254 (16 [25716]) In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Opera7.03/Win32 M2 build 2670 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:36058 Date: 2003-04-10T16:04:38+01:00 List-Id: On Wed, 09 Apr 2003 20:50:34 +0100, Nick Roberts wrote: >> I'm looking at an implementation which will call user-defined >> Deallocate, whether X is null or not. Is it correct? > > I believe this implementation is 'right'. It is certainly right if the > module which contains the user-defined deallocation also chooses the > representation(s) of a null pointer. Generally, is will be for the user- > defined Deallocate to test if the access value is null, and do nothing > (as the RM specifies) if it is. To reiterate, please cancel this opinion! I was either thinking of something else entirely or just inebriated. -- Nick Roberts Jabber: debater@charente.de [ICQ: 159718630]