Re: Q: memory management

[Hannes Haug <Hannes.Haug@Student.Uni-Tuebingen.de>]

>>>>> "TT" == Tucker Taft <stt@henning.camb.inmet.com> writes:

    TT> This should work.  The storage pool would be specified via
    TT> Some_Access_Type'Storage_Pool where Some_Access_Type is any
    TT> access type declared at the library level.  It would be safest
    TT> if the access type had an unconstrained designated subtype,
    TT> such as:

    TT>      type Some_Access_Type is access all String;

    TT> to avoid the implementation-chosen storage pool from being one
    TT> that only works on access collections of uniformly-sized
    TT> objects.

Let's be e little bit pedantic. The size of such an array is always > 0,
even if the length is 0. The bounds have to be stored somewhere. So what
happens if I want to allocate a piece of memory that is smaller than such
an array of length 0 ? Perhaps the storage pool doesn't handle such small
pieces. It's just a theoretical problem, of course.

 - hannes