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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,345a8b767542016e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-03-19 10:20:06 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.ems.psu.edu!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!netnews.com!xfer02.netnews.com!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamfinder.gnilink.net!nwrddc01.gnilink.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: "Frank J. Lhota" <NOSPAM.lhota.adarose@verizon.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
References: <3c90af1e@news.starhub.net.sg> <a6r075$7ei$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <3c91bfa3.1987537@news.demon.co.uk> <3C921A81.9060708@mail.com>
 <a6tq2m$rnb$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu>
 <dcfe911f.0203162143.327902b7@posting.google.com>
 <a71ffd$5c9$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu> <3C962624.5080008@home.com>
 <3c97027d.1284426@news.demon.co.uk> <3C97713C.1040805@home.com>
Subject: Re: memory leakages with Ada?
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Message-ID: <pjLl8.22781$e33.4194@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 18:20:05 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 141.154.14.20
X-Complaints-To: business-support@verizon.com
X-Trace: nwrddc01.gnilink.net 1016562005 141.154.14.20 (Tue,
 19 Mar 2002 13:20:05 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 13:20:05 EST
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:21462
Date: 2002-03-19T18:20:05+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@home.com> wrote in message
news:3C97713C.1040805@home.com...
> > Something else about unchecked deallocation, as far as I can remember,
> > is that if you give it a null pointer it doesn't do anything. This is
> > nice (but in a way it can make you lazy :-)
>
>
> If this is true, this is bad IMHO. I'd rather know by an exception
>
> that I was trying to free something that was "no more", than to go
> glibly forward.  I'll have to test this on GNAT sometime.

Yes, it is true that instantiations of Ada.Unchecked_Deallocation are
required to do nothing if called with a null access value. This is also true
of the C/C++ equivalents, i.e. the C call "free(NULL)" should also do
nothing, according to the standard.

I'm not sure why this is bad.