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,c406e0c4a6eb74ed
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!peer01.cox.net!cox.net!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: ADA Popularity Discussion Request
Date: 22 Sep 2004 21:51:38 +0100
Organization: Pushface
Sender: simon@smaug.pushface.org
Message-ID: <x7visa6ni1x.fsf@smaug.pushface.org>
References: <49dc98cf.0408110556.18ae7df@posting.google.com>
 <n461d.6062$sX2.1584@trndny09>
 <MrNoSpam-F51108.16190313092004@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
 <17sx057ro5jw5$.t2qlaeoxg611$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <1095082522.132276@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <18ym85v67zof3$.7oqswzjfgswr.dlg@40tude.net>
 <1095090665.624419@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <68zmgy3b894u.rs67cy6jjfiq$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <ci6cc6$9br$2@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
 <e749549b.0409152029.21d9a091@posting.google.com>
 <1164383.Vq7EPUUJyU@linux1.krischik.com>
 <cicn0s$516$2@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
 <2177491.OlAk1RxoCA@linux1.krischik.com>
 <aM6dnXW2tPna3dLcRVn-pA@megapath.net>
 <1434159.hBAPArD9Aj@linux1.krischik.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pogner.demon.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1095886659 4419 62.49.19.209 (22 Sep 2004 20:57:39
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2004 20:57:39 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3960
Date: 2004-09-22T21:51:38+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net> writes:

> See 13.11(24):
> 
>  24. A default (implementation-provided) storage pool for an
>      access-to-constant type should not have overhead to support
>      deallocation of individual objects.

I am always moaning at requirements that specify a mechanism rather
than an intention.

I don't see why the fact that a type is access-to-constant should
eliminate the need for deallocation.

There is clearly a difference between

   P : Constant_String_Access := new String'("p");

and

   Q : constant Constant_String_Access := new String'("q");

(well, to me anyway).

The AARM says

24.a
    Ramification: Unchecked_Deallocation is not defined for such
    types. If the access-to-constant type is library-level, then no
    deallocation (other than at partition completion) will ever be
    necessary, so if the size needed by an allocator of the type is
    known at link-time, then the allocation should be performed
    statically. If, in addition, the initial value of the designated
    object is known at compile time, the object can be allocated to
    read-only memory.

so the allocation part is there if you look, and that's the major part
here.

-- 
Simon Wright                               100% Ada, no bugs.