Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!sunybcs!sbcs!stealth!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: of course!
Message-ID: <4036@sbcs.sunysb.edu>
Date: 23 Nov 89 05:05:00 GMT
Sender: news@sbcs.sunysb.edu
Reply-To: brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Followup-To: comp.lang.c
Distribution: usa
Organization: IR
Lines: 20

In article <1051@root44.co.uk> gwc@root.co.uk (Geoff Clare) writes:
> In article <17303@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> >		char dir[PATH_MAX];
> >		strcpy(dir, path);
> >             strcat(dir, "/.");
> Anyway,
> using a maximum length array is rather wasteful - malloc(strlen(path)+3)
> would be much better all round.

Ummm, no. PATH_MAX is much smaller than the page size on most machines,
so it almost certainly won't change the actual memory use of the process.
In contrast, malloc(strlen()) is noticeably slower, a bit less readable,
and prone to failure.

Unless a lot of memory is tied up in such arrays, malloc() isn't worth
it. Don't waste dynamic memory for static uses.

Followups to comp.lang.c so I don't have to read them.

---Dan