• Christopher J. Sequeira (10/10) Jan 19 2003 I have browsed through the other GC threads and am hoping this hasn't
• Ilya Minkov (8/15) Jan 20 2003 No trouble. The same thing happens as when you allocate memory in a C
• Walter (4/7) Jan 28 2003 Oh, it's always been legal, and my compilers have always done it.
• Russ Lewis (9/16) Jan 29 2003 Correct me if I'm wrong: a side effect of this, in addition to "leaking
• Walter (5/19) Feb 10 2003 years.

"Christopher J. Sequeira" <csequeir mit.edu> writes:

I have browsed through the other GC threads and am hoping this hasn't 
already been answered, but what if the developer disables garbage 
collection and does not turn it back on just before the program exits? 
Is the data that should have been garbage-collected lost... "leaked"? 
If this has been answered, thank you to those who can point me to the 
relevant thread.  If it's a dumb question, then please bear with the new 
newbie :)
-- 
Christopher J. Sequeira '05
csequeir mit.edu

Ilya Minkov <midiclub 8ung.at> writes:

Christopher J. Sequeira wrote:
 I have browsed through the other GC threads and am hoping this hasn't 
 already been answered, but what if the developer disables garbage 
 collection and does not turn it back on just before the program exits? 
 Is the data that should have been garbage-collected lost... "leaked"? If 
 this has been answered, thank you to those who can point me to the 
 relevant thread.  If it's a dumb question, then please bear with the new 
 newbie :)

No trouble. The same thing happens as when you allocate memory in a C 
programme and never free it. After you exit the programme, the operating 
system reclaims all the memory it gave the process.

Some programms, notably compilers and short-run utilities, make use of 
such "memory management", it is considered fairly legal since some years.

Memory leaks are only an issue for long-run code.

-i.

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

"Ilya Minkov" <midiclub 8ung.at> wrote in message
news:b0h1ou$15rl$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Some programms, notably compilers and short-run utilities, make use of
 such "memory management", it is considered fairly legal since some years.

Oh, it's always been legal, and my compilers have always done it.

 Memory leaks are only an issue for long-run code.

Yup.

Russ Lewis <spamhole-2001-07-16 deming-os.org> writes:

Walter wrote:

 "Ilya Minkov" <midiclub 8ung.at> wrote in message
 news:b0h1ou$15rl$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Some programms, notably compilers and short-run utilities, make use of
 such "memory management", it is considered fairly legal since some years.

 Oh, it's always been legal, and my compilers have always done it.

 Memory leaks are only an issue for long-run code.

 Yup.

Correct me if I'm wrong: a side effect of this, in addition to "leaking
memory", is that destructors won't be called either, right?  So a class holding
some resource won't be able to run it's cleaning up destructor?

--
The Villagers are Online! http://villagersonline.com

.[ (the fox.(quick,brown)) jumped.over(the dog.lazy) ]
.[ (a version.of(English).(precise.more)) is(possible) ]
?[ you want.to(help(develop(it))) ]

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

"Russ Lewis" <spamhole-2001-07-16 deming-os.org> wrote in message
news:3E37A9F1.C309DA49 deming-os.org...
 Walter wrote:

 "Ilya Minkov" <midiclub 8ung.at> wrote in message
 news:b0h1ou$15rl$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Some programms, notably compilers and short-run utilities, make use of
 such "memory management", it is considered fairly legal since some



years.
 Oh, it's always been legal, and my compilers have always done it.

 Memory leaks are only an issue for long-run code.

 Yup.

 Correct me if I'm wrong: a side effect of this, in addition to "leaking
 memory", is that destructors won't be called either, right?  So a class

holding
 some resource won't be able to run it's cleaning up destructor?

You're quite right. -Walter