On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 05:52:29AM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > > However, my personal taste says that reusing the same memory is more > > elegant than to waste extra memory unnecessarily, so I will go with the > > child_process_init() solution. > > I do not mind much either way. But I doubt that a single extra struct on > the stack will break the bank, compared to the fact that we are forking > and execing a new program. I'd also not be surprised if a smart compiler > could notice that the variables are used exclusively in non-overlapping > bits of the code, and just reuse the stack space.
Actually, I take that back. We are passing a pointer to a struct, rather than by-value, so the compiler cannot know that the sub-function does not store that pointer in a static variable, and reference it in the next call. It must use two variables if it cannot see the definition of run_command. I still think it's pointless optimization to worry about, and you should write whichever is the most readable and maintainable. -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
