From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7959 invoked by alias); 22 Apr 2010 09:03:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 7732 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Apr 2010 09:03:08 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp21.services.sfr.fr (HELO smtp21.services.sfr.fr) (93.17.128.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 09:03:04 +0000 Received: from filter.sfr.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by msfrf2103.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id DF96D7000089; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 11:03:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.101] (242.196.98-84.rev.gaoland.net [84.98.196.242]) by msfrf2103.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 81FD07000094; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 11:03:01 +0200 (CEST) X-SFR-UUID: 20100422090301532.81FD07000094@msfrf2103.sfr.fr Subject: Re: Notes from the GROW'10 workshop panel (GCC research opportunities workshop) From: Laurent GUERBY To: Basile Starynkevitch Cc: Manuel =?ISO-8859-1?Q?L=F3pez-Ib=E1=F1ez?= , gcc@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20100415115737.GA32020@hector.lesours> References: <003b01cadbde$21913eb0$64b3bc10$@com> <20100414154431.GR540@codesourcery.com> <4BC609AA.7080503@moene.org> <4BC61C34.7070106@starynkevitch.net> <4BC634F1.6030906@starynkevitch.net> <20100415115737.GA32020@hector.lesours> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 09:18:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1271926978.22600.202.camel@pc2.unassigned-domain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-04/txt/msg00519.txt.bz2 On Thu, 2010-04-15 at 13:57 +0200, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: > (BTW I call lowlevel any language which does not manage memory > automatically; I am quite fond of Ocaml even if I don't use it much today. > So in my eyes C++, Ada95 & Fortran2005 are still low-level; this is only a > matter of taste & terminology). You didn't look very hard in the Ada Reference Manual :). Garbage collection support for Ada implementations is optional but defined in Ada since the first standard in 1983. All Ada standards (83/95/05) do have a "garbage collection" entry in their index wich lists the various parts of the standard interacting with absence or presence of automatic memory management, for example see "pragma Controlled". GNAT/GCC does not provide garbage collection but GNAT/dotnet and GNAT/Java do provide it so you can run Ada software these days without having to do manual memory management. Sincerely, Laurent