From: Matthew Woodcraft <mattheww@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Stack based allocation vs. Dynamic allocation
Date: 2000/06/01
Date: 2000-06-01T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9Ld*FWyto@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 86og5m7aig.fsf@acm.org
In article <86og5m7aig.fsf@acm.org>, Laurent Guerby <guerby@acm.org> wrote:
>Dale Stanbrough <dale@cs.rmit.edu.au> writes:
>
>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.
-M-
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 ` Ray Blaak
2000-05-31 0:00 ` Dale Stanbrough
2000-05-31 0:00 ` Laurent Guerby
2000-06-01 0:00 ` Matthew Woodcraft [this message]
2000-06-01 0:00 ` Laurent Guerby
2000-06-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
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 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen
2000-05-31 0:00 ` Aaro Koskinen
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox