[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: alloca again
On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 02:22:23AM +0000, David Holland wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 12:41:07AM +0300, Valery Ushakov wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 18:32:47 +0000, David Holland wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 03:45:06PM +0200, Roland Illig wrote:
> > > > > This is the current alloca definition in the libc headers:
> > > > >
> > > > > #if defined(_NETBSD_SOURCE)
> > > > > #if defined(alloca) && (alloca == __builtin_alloca) && \
> > >
> > > Note that the part you didn't quote is
> > > defined(__GNUC__) && __GNUC__ < 2
> > > and all it does is change the argument type to int from size_t.
> > >
> > > This makes it highly unlikely that it ever failed, for an assortment
> > > of reasons, not the least of which is that we removed critical parts
> > > of gcc2 support from /usr/include years ago so it's not been exercised
> > > in at least that long.
> > ITYM gcc1? Note "less than" in __GNUC__ < 2
> Oops! Yeah.
> Was gcc1 still in use even in 1993? I can't remember.
Yes, because gcc2 was unstable for many architectures, and had performance
regressions for others.
Thor Lancelot Simon tls%panix.com@localhost
"Somehow it works like a joke, but it makes no sense."
Main Index |
Thread Index |