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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,42a57c8ee023f14d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Hannes Haug <Hannes.Haug@Student.Uni-Tuebingen.de>
Subject: Re: Q: memory management
Date: 1996/06/25
Message-ID: <uvvd92ojlgc.fsf@chaq.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 162019578
sender: haugha@chaq.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de
references: <9606192037.AA13484@most>
organization: Uni Tuebingen
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-06-25T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


>>>>> "Robert" == Robert Dewar <dewar@cs.nyu.edu> writes:

    Robert> Hannes said "Imagine bignum arithmetic with garbage
    Robert> collection. If I'd have just some bignums there would be
    Robert> too many garbage collections."

    Robert> No, that's not a good example, there still would be no
    Robert> need in Ada to be doing low level untyped allocation.

    Robert> The necessary data structures can be described in Ada, and
    Robert> allocated in a safely typed manner without additional
    Robert> space overhead.

No space overhead if you deal with unconstrained arrays?

I use gmp-2 (the GNU bignum package). Perhaps I'll never look at the
contents of the memory regions form Ada. I need no safely typed Ada
structure.

Does GNAT's allocate call malloc? That would be an additional overhead
of one word (that depends on the malloc, of course) for malloc's header.

 -hannes