From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Aug 10 11:39:21 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA05656 for chat-outgoing; Sun, 10 Aug 1997 11:39:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ethanol.gnu.ai.mit.edu (joelh@ethanol.gnu.ai.mit.edu [128.52.46.64]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA05651 for ; Sun, 10 Aug 1997 11:39:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ethanol.gnu.ai.mit.edu (8.8.5/8.6.12GNU) id OAA09609; Sun, 10 Aug 1997 14:38:58 -0400 Date: Sun, 10 Aug 1997 14:38:58 -0400 Message-Id: <199708101838.OAA09609@ethanol.gnu.ai.mit.edu> To: sef@Kithrup.COM CC: chat@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: <199708101742.KAA17395@kithrup.com> (message from Sean Eric Fagan on Sun, 10 Aug 1997 10:42:38 -0700) Subject: Re: variable sized arrays and gcc From: Joel Ray Holveck Reply-to: joelh@gnu.ai.mit.edu Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > alloca() was the reason gcc added VLA's in the first place, actually. And > the code is the same. But VLA's are easier to read. And clean up on exit, instead of Gwyn's implementation, which cleans up on next alloca() call. -- Second law of programming: Anything that can go wrong wi sendmail: segmentation violation -- core dumped