From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Wed Sep 14 15:30:58 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 310D2BDA078 for ; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 15:30:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from allanjude@freebsd.org) Received: from mx1.scaleengine.net (mx1.scaleengine.net [209.51.186.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 157BC12CA for ; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 15:30:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from allanjude@freebsd.org) Received: from [10.1.1.2] (unknown [10.1.1.2]) (Authenticated sender: allanjude.freebsd@scaleengine.com) by mx1.scaleengine.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E46461FD2 for ; Wed, 14 Sep 2016 15:30:55 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: Is replacing alloca(3) where possible a good thing to do? To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org References: From: Allan Jude Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 11:30:55 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 15:30:58 -0000 On 2016-09-14 10:48, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > FWIW, > > After some discussion with one of the principal Illumos developers it is > clear that they won't accept replacing alloca(3) for the sake of > "portability". You also can't always replace alloca(3) with VLAs anyways. > > Pedro. > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" The one time I tried to use it, it went very badly, as it returns a pointer, but the actual amount of memory was less than I had requested, and so it smashed everything. -- Allan Jude