Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 20:54:42 +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: <CALXu0UcbMtevEx8DP-557MQHVDsJuyBHz9FOWE8OV3UXErPOYA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <d192dbeb-5647-e552-9db1-b478aa7ac057@FreeBSD.org> References: <d192dbeb-5647-e552-9db1-b478aa7ac057@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. Typical Sun policy which was one of the reasons which sealed the downfall of Sun Microsystems. But this is NO ARGUMENT for FreeBSD... Ced On 14 September 2016 at 16:48, Pedro Giffuni <pfg@freebsd.org> 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" -- 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?CALXu0UcbMtevEx8DP-557MQHVDsJuyBHz9FOWE8OV3UXErPOYA>