Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 11:30:55 -0400 From: Allan Jude <allanjude@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is replacing alloca(3) where possible a good thing to do? Message-ID: <bd0607f1-2224-02db-e430-6c34e42297bf@freebsd.org> 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
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bd0607f1-2224-02db-e430-6c34e42297bf>