From: Laurent Guerby <guerby@acm.org>
Subject: Re: Stack based allocation vs. Dynamic allocation
Date: 2000/06/01
Date: 2000-06-01T14:03:24+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <86og5la3x2.fsf@acm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 9Ld*FWyto@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk
Matthew Woodcraft <mattheww@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> In article <86og5m7aig.fsf@acm.org>, Laurent Guerby <guerby@acm.org> wrote:
> >Also you can have more fun by having the size of the local array
> >variable being a function of i, since there is no C stack based
> >equivalent (GNU C has it as a language extension though).
>
> I believe this is one of the additions in the recently-adopted C
> standard.
Do you have a pointer to it (or a draft)? I'm curious about
what got added.
--
Laurent Guerby <guerby@acm.org>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2000-06-01 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-05-31 0:00 Stack based allocation vs. Dynamic allocation dale
2000-05-31 0:00 ` Aaro Koskinen
2000-05-31 0:00 ` Ray Blaak
2000-05-31 0:00 ` Gisle S�lensminde
2000-05-31 0:00 ` Lutz Donnerhacke
2000-05-31 0:00 ` Gisle S�lensminde
2000-05-31 0:00 ` Aaro Koskinen
2000-05-31 0:00 ` Dale Stanbrough
2000-05-31 0:00 ` Laurent Guerby
2000-06-01 0:00 ` Matthew Woodcraft
2000-06-01 0:00 ` Laurent Guerby [this message]
2000-06-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
2000-05-31 0:00 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox