Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:33601 alt.religion.computers:2029
Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!mintaka!bloom-beacon!daemon
From: scs@adam.mit.edu (Steve Summit)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,alt.religion.computers
Subject: alloca (was: Re: scope of malloc)
Message-ID: <1990Nov9.235455.1040@athena.mit.edu>
Date: 9 Nov 90 23:54:55 GMT
References: <1791@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au> <1990Nov07.134942.7355@virtech.uucp> <1990Nov7.234315.15508@athena.mit.edu> <3729@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background)
Reply-To: scs@adam.mit.edu (Steve Summit)
Followup-To: alt.religion.computers
Organization: Thermal Technologies, Inc.
Lines: 17

In article <1990Nov7.234315.15508@athena.mit.edu> I wrote:
>Correction: "If you just want the pointer to be around during the
>function and you want the program to be unportable..." [use alloca]

In article <3729@skye.ed.ac.uk> richard@aiai.UUCP (Richard Tobin) writes:
>Where unportable means "portable to an extremely large class of
>machines and compilers".  Portability is always a compromise.  You
>have the choice of rejecting machines or compilers with such serious
>deficiencies as making alloca() impossible.

Not everyone views such machines and compilers as deficient, let
alone seriously so.

Followups to alt.religion.computers.

                                            Steve Summit
                                            scs@adam.mit.edu