Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!uwvax!oddjob!ncar!ames!oliveb!sun!thetone!swilson
From: swilson%thetone@Sun.COM (Scott Wilson)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: alloca wars
Keywords: alloca memory allocation
Message-ID: <62721@sun.uucp>
Date: 4 Aug 88 00:23:27 GMT
References: <3950010@eecs.nwu.edu> <62170@sun.uucp> <62363@sun.uucp> <8293@smoke.ARPA> <19895@cornell.UUCP> <5422@june.cs.washington.edu> <8301@smoke.ARPA> <5426@june.cs.washington.edu>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Reply-To: swilson@sun.UUCP (Scott Wilson)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View
Lines: 18

Oh gosh, I'm sorry I ever brought up alloca.  The original post
was in response to the portability issue, so let me see if we
agree on this:

1.)  Code that, in general, makes use of features that are less available
     than others is, in general, less portable.

2.)  Alloca is less available than malloc/free.

3.)  Therefore, all other things equal, code that uses alloca is less
     portable than code that doesn't.

Does this make sense?

--
Scott Wilson		arpa: swilson@sun.com		"Why do dogs lick
Sun Microsystems	uucp: ...!sun!swilson		their balls?  Because
Mt. View, CA						they can!"