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: 103376,714a9fe4718c9803
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!proxad.net!proxad.net!194.159.246.34.MISMATCH!peer-uk.news.demon.net!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Problems with controlled types,
 gnatmem thinks handle is leaking memory (long)
Date: 21 Feb 2005 20:12:34 +0000
Organization: Pushface
Sender: simon@smaug.pushface.org
Message-ID: <x7v650lk6z1.fsf@smaug.pushface.org>
References: 
 <pan.2005.02.20.16.30.10.917724@n_o_p_o_r_k_a_n_d_h_a_m.abyss2.demon.co.uk>
 <1s73d5wqz8pme.1m22aqftdn6ij.dlg@40tude.net>
 <pan.2005.02.20.23.09.14.990226@n_o_p_o_r_k_a_n_d_h_a_m.abyss2.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pogner.demon.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1109016829 21250 62.49.19.209 (21 Feb 2005 20:13:49
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 20:13:49 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8447
Date: 2005-02-21T20:12:34+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Luke A. Guest" <laguest@n_o_p_o_r_k_a_n_d_h_a_m.abyss2.demon.co.uk> writes:

> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 19:09:02 +0100, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

> > In Finalize: I check if Ref_Count = 0 before decrementing and raise
> 
> No need to check for the reference count to be 0, as it can never go
> negative and if it does, there's a problem with the code.

I believe it is possible for an object to be Finalized more than once.

> > if the Ref_Count is zero upon object's finalization. That helps a
> > lot!
> 
> I suppose I could raise an exception if the reference count isn't
> zero on finalisation, hmmm...but surely there would be an error in
> the code if that were not the case? Surely it's another example of
> what I mentioned above, it should never go wrong as long as the
> initialize, adjust & finalize subprograms have been implemented
> correctly.

It isn't a good idea to propagate an exception out of a Finalize
operation (it's a bounded error to do so, 7.6.1(14)).


-- 
Simon Wright                               100% Ada, no bugs.