Re: iso_varying_string in f2003?

> P.S. I'm afraid I don't understand the point of Joost's alleged example.
> I'm suspicious that maybe he misunderstand something about the
> standard... because I can't see any point being illustrated. Yes, it is
> possible to allocate something and then not deallocate it... but
>
> 1. That's not a memory leak. A memory leak is when something is using
> memory but can no longer be accessed... particularly if this can happen
> repetitively.
>
> 2. You don't need 2 levels of modules to illustrate allocating something
> and not deallocating it. This leads me to suspect that you think the
> modules are having some effect here. Do you think that something happens
> to the array on return to the main program? It doesn't. The array
> remains allocated and usable.

It is well possible that I made a wrong assumption, furthermore there
is also something wrong in the example.

I meant that S2 uses M1 (not M2 using M1). I believe that this would be
an example where the module variables in M1 become undefined after
execution of S2, and since the compiler doesn't need to deallocate A
after the call to S1 I was assuming this to be a leak.

Joost

.

Quantcast