Glenn Fowler wrote:
again
show us some real numbers that point to a hotspot in the code
that exposes appreciable time/space waste and we'll address it
...
we own all of the ast interfaces
some have threads in mind but not implemented
To clarify - are you saying that, as upstream providers of
]ast/ksh93, you are _not_ in favor of the VLA changes that
Roland and crew are proposing for integration into ast/ksh93
code as a result of their ksh93-for-opensolaris efforts?
If so, then this implies that the ksh93-for-opensolaris
project needs to either
justify to y'all why the specific VLA usage they
are implementing is indeed something you should
endorse,
or
back out the VLA work in favor of the original
status quo.
Any other path effectively forces Roland (etc) to fork a
variant of ast/ksh, which is something that nobody wants
to see happen.
From my perspective, doing C99 VLAs simply because they are
cute ("more or less as a demo usage") is a poor justification,
especially if it adds minimal value and exposes a new class of
bugs. Not that the bugs shouldn't get found and fixed, but
because the design choice lacks a compelling rationale.
-John
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-code mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
