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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Victor Porton Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Allocators design flaw Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 18:17:12 +0300 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 8U0x309/ia0QUzusgm/krA.user.gioia.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: KNode/4.14.10 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:48464 Date: 2017-10-14T18:17:12+03:00 List-Id: Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > On 2017-10-14 16:24, Victor Porton wrote: > >> I mean, it is because we cannot change C standard for better >> compatibility with Ada. But we can change Ada 202x for better >> compatibility with C libraries. > > There is nothing incompatible in what you described. > > There are many C libraries (most?) which cannot deal with objects > allocated outside, e.g. in an Ada pool. There was never a big problem to > communicate with such libraries. I want to create an Ada pool which does the same (de)allocation as a C library. The problem is that creating such a pool is (seemingly) impossible with current Ada RM. > The only design flaw Ada has is what Simon referenced to [*]. This is > specific to unconstrained Ada arrays which are incompatible with C anyway. > > ------------------ > * Array address is the address of the first array element rather than > the address of the array object. > -- Victor Porton - http://portonvictor.org