From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,123c40d62c632159 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Laurent Guerby Subject: Re: Stack based allocation vs. Dynamic allocation Date: 2000/06/01 Message-ID: <86og5la3x2.fsf@acm.org>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 629881652 References: <86og5m7aig.fsf@acm.org> <9Ld*FWyto@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> X-Trace: front7m.grolier.fr 959868204 20838 194.158.112.22 (1 Jun 2000 14:03:24 GMT) Organization: Club-Internet (France) NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 Jun 2000 14:03:24 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-06-01T14:03:24+00:00 List-Id: Matthew Woodcraft writes: > In article <86og5m7aig.fsf@acm.org>, Laurent Guerby 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