rmainz at redhat.com
Thu Jul 9 12:05:06 EDT 2015
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Danilo Almeida" <dalmeida at mit.edu>
> To: nico at cryptonector.com, npmccallum at redhat.com
> Cc: "krbdev at mit.edu" <krbdev at mit.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 3:13:40 AM
> Subject: RE: C99 Features
> <quote from="Nico">
> Both are fine when the sizes are naturally limited to small sizes, but this
> requires more review effort. Alternatively one could have a macro to guard
> against unsafe array sizes. I'd rather VLAs and alloca() were frowned upon
> (though not forbidden).
> I am not sure how such a macro would work.
> Otherwise, I mostly agree with Nico, except that I am not comfortable with
> the "though not forbidden" part. Nathaniel, do you have any performance
> numbers would help the case for the extra effort (and potential risk)?
It's not all about short-term per-function/module/etc. performance - it's also about major cases of heap fragmentation caused by temporary-buffer-allocation vs. long-term allocations - see http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/krbdev/2015-July/012406.html
__ . . __
(o.\ \/ /.o) rmainz at redhat.com
\__\/\/__/ IPA/Kerberos5 team
/O /==\ O\
(;O/ \/ \O;)
More information about the krbdev