Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 21:14:37 +0200 From: Cedric Blancher <cedric.blancher@gmail.com> To: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@freebsd.org> Cc: FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Is replacing alloca(3) where possible a good thing to do? Message-ID: <CALXu0UdbDdpu3LZp3_VtwEkgmbj28hOQ5EET%2Bmwj-ZNSSS3GzQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <90f37d14-a187-06b2-6187-7a9c1890a73f@FreeBSD.org> References: <d192dbeb-5647-e552-9db1-b478aa7ac057@FreeBSD.org> <CALXu0UcbMtevEx8DP-557MQHVDsJuyBHz9FOWE8OV3UXErPOYA@mail.gmail.com> <90f37d14-a187-06b2-6187-7a9c1890a73f@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
dtrace can do VLA Are there other arguments? Ced On 14 September 2016 at 21:11, Pedro Giffuni <pfg@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > On 14/09/2016 13:54, Cedric Blancher wrote: >> >> Who was the "principal Illumos developer"? I remember some heated >> discussions, mostly rooted in 'we stick with ANSI C' and because the >> CTF/dwarf tools in Illumos were unable to handle VLA and no one was >> interested in fixing the BUGS in their toolchain, so the cheapest >> solution was done: VLA was declared persona non grata. Saves company >> money. > > > Yes, the non-accessibility of VLAs for Dtrace was the main argument. This > was a private conversation with Garrett D'Amore who did some nice > enhancements to our printf(1). > >> Typical Sun policy which was one of the reasons which sealed the >> downfall of Sun Microsystems. >> >> But this is NO ARGUMENT for FreeBSD... > > > Our printf(1) implementation has all their enhancements but uses a VLA > instead of alloca. > > This said, whatever illumos wants to keep in their code is relevant as we > want to make it easy to merge ZFS and Dtrace changes back and forth. > > Pedro. -- Cedric Blancher <cedric.blancher@gmail.com> [https://plus.google.com/u/0/+CedricBlancher/] Institute Pasteur
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CALXu0UdbDdpu3LZp3_VtwEkgmbj28hOQ5EET%2Bmwj-ZNSSS3GzQ>