Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: scope of malloc
Message-ID: <14437@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 12 Nov 90 13:46:14 GMT
References: <3729@skye.ed.ac.uk> <14413@smoke.brl.mil> <2182@kraftbus.opal.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 13

In article <2182@kraftbus.opal.cs.tu-berlin.de> net@tubopal.UUCP (Oliver Laumann) writes:
>Yes, I know that alloca() may not work with certain existing C
>compilers, but why, for instance, can't vendors with such types of
>compilers add an option to support alloca()

It's not simply a compiler issue; many interesting computer achitectures
are such that alloca() cannot be reasonably implemented, particularly if
you take into account interrupts (signals).

>You also keep mentioning the argument that alloca() is not needed.  If
>this is true, then how do you make sure that in the following function, ...

I don't write spaghetti code.