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: 1996/06/18
Message-ID: <uvvg27t9v68.fsf@chaq.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 160806393
sender: haugha@chaq.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de
references: <uvvafy3ucoc.fsf@chaq.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>
organization: Uni Tuebingen
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-06-18T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


>>>>> "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