Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote: >>Ian Collins wrote: >> >> >>>Alan Coopersmith wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Roland Mainz wrote: >>>> >>>> >>[snip] >> >> >>>>Isn't that what alloca() is for? (Ignoring the simple fact that >>>>alloca() >>>>is actually horribly broken since it never tells you if it's failed, just >>>>lets you corrupt your stack when you ask for too much memory.) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>Just like C99 VLAs! >>> >>> >>Umpf... C99 VLAs are neither horrible nor broken. They're a valid >>language construct and highly usefull if properly used (noone is >>suggesting to allocate 300GB that way). >> >> > > >I'm sure "Just like VLAs" refers to the "won't tell if it fails" not >to horrible and broken; I don't see alloca() being much different than >VLAs, to be honest; it's just syntactic sugar. > > > Exactly my point, sorry if it wasn't clear.
The only real advantage of VLAs is to ease the porting of gcc code. Ian
