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: Matthew Woodcraft <mattheww@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Stack based allocation vs. Dynamic allocation
Date: 2000/06/01
Message-ID: <9Ld*FWyto@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 629810968
References: <dale-D70BFC.16062031052000@news.rmit.edu.au>
 <m33dmz9otb.fsf@ns49.infomatch.bc.ca>
 <dale-B8D55E.22230631052000@news.rmit.edu.au> <86og5m7aig.fsf@acm.org>
Organization: Linux Unlimited
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Originator: mattheww@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk ([127.0.0.1])
Date: 2000-06-01T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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-