|What's wrong with alloca() ? firstname.lastname@example.org (1991-12-19)|
|Re: What's wrong with alloca() ? email@example.com (1991-12-15)|
|Re: What's wrong with alloca() ? firstname.lastname@example.org (1991-12-21)|
|Re: What's wrong with alloca() ? email@example.com (1991-12-22)|
|Re: What's wrong with alloca() ? firstname.lastname@example.org (1991-12-23)|
|Re: What's wrong with alloca() ? David.Chase@Eng.Sun.COM (1991-12-23)|
|Re: What's wrong with alloca() ? email@example.com (1991-12-26)|
|[14 later articles]|
|From:||firstname.lastname@example.org (Preston Briggs)|
|Summary:||why is use of alloca() deprecated?|
|Organization:||Rice University, Houston|
|Date:||Thu, 19 Dec 1991 22:48:47 GMT|
After reading many man pages and talking to several friends, I get the
feeling that alloca() is becoming unpopular, and in some case unsupported.
Why is this happening? I like it. It's a fast alternative to malloc in
many common situations. In particular, it allows quick deallocation.
It's not difficult to support, though it may cost an extra register.
Support efficient memory management! Require alloca in your next C compiler.
[It is my impression that there are environments where you can't reliably
implement alloca. On non-Unix systems, you can't count on there being a
big pool of space just beyond the stack frame, frames may be a linked list
in random places around the address space. I do agree that something like it
is nice to have around. -John]
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.