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-Thread: 103376,21960280f1d61e84
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!news-feed01.roc.ny.frontiernet.net!nntp.frontiernet.net!newsfeed2.telusplanet.net!newsfeed.telus.net!edtnps90.POSTED!023a3d7c!not-for-mail
Sender: blaak@METROID
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: in defense of GC
References: <1169531612.200010.153120@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
 <xwsldwre3j.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <md64ashx3o.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <1mahvxskejxe1$.tx7bjdqyo2oj$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <2tfy9vgph3.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <1g7m33bys8v4p.6p9cpsh3k031$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <s1mz41g7d3.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <14hm72xd3b0bq$.axktv523vay8$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4zwt33xm4b.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <1j7neot6h1udi$.14vp2aos6z9l8.dlg@40tude.net>
 <ubqkd8yk3.fsf@STRIPCAPStelus.net>
 <AuednXvMpOTR8l_YnZ2dnUVZ_ruknZ2d@megapath.net>
 <u7iv18hm3.fsf_-_@STRIPCAPStelus.net>
 <1pzx3y7d2pide.y744copm0ejb$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <hwzm7wafut.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <n7pgtyy2vmsh.1ifb1qd3h8y8t$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <g464ajco2i.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <wcc64ahfo61.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <uodo9pgfe.fsf@STRIPCAPStelus.net>
 <pirehz9i2.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <uwt2vofeg.fsf@STRIPCAPStelus.net>
 <06abzrtuhe.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <ur6t3tbbg.fsf@STRIPCAPStelus.net>
From: Ray Blaak <rAYblaaK@STRIPCAPStelus.net>
Organization: The Transcend
Message-ID: <umz3rt6mg.fsf@STRIPCAPStelus.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 19:42:52 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.66.252.228
X-Trace: edtnps90 1170790972 208.66.252.228 (Tue, 06 Feb 2007 12:42:52 MST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 12:42:52 MST
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:9035
Date: 2007-02-06T19:42:52+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Ray Blaak <rAYblaaK@STRIPCAPStelus.net> writes:
> Markus E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> writes:
> > Similarily, I think, it might be possible to avoid malloc() if
> > everything is done in static or local buffers.
> 
> I don't think so. Many algorithms have unbounded and unpredictable memory
> usage patterns. These could only be handled by viewing the (large?) static
> buffers as preallocated memory, and then one has the equivalent of malloc
> and/or GC all over again.

To clarify: by viewing the static buffers as a preallocated memory *pool*.

-- 
Cheers,                                        The Rhythm is around me,
                                               The Rhythm has control.
Ray Blaak                                      The Rhythm is inside me,
rAYblaaK@STRIPCAPStelus.net                    The Rhythm has my soul.