• Walter (2/2) Aug 08 2002 with VLA's.
• Jan Knepper (2/4) Aug 08 2002
• Walter (5/10) Aug 08 2002 C99 VLAs fit in with the discussion on arrays in D, so I thought I'd gai...
• Jan Knepper (3/6) Aug 08 2002 Well, we're delighted to have it!
• Matthew Wilson (3/5) Aug 09 2002 What happens if the requested size exceeds the heap capacity?
• Walter (5/11) Aug 09 2002 You should get a 'Stack Overflow' message. Note that although VLAs are
• Matthew Wilson (6/18) Aug 09 2002 So the Stack Overflow is part of the standard?
• Walter (6/9) Aug 09 2002 I couldn't find anything in the standard about what happens if the
• Matthew Wilson (9/18) Aug 11 2002 It's bad that there seems to be no direction from the standards as to wh...
• Walter (11/18) Aug 11 2002 minute
• damiandixon netscape.net (9/27) Aug 30 2002 In September's issue of CUJ, there is a nice article (starts page 27)
• Walter (8/42) Aug 30 2002 Thanks for the pointer. I agree with his assessment on the problems with

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

with VLA's.

www.digitalmars.com/dmc/dmcppDownload.html

Jan Knepper <jan smartsoft.cc> writes:

Hey I thought you were back to D! <g>



Walter wrote:

 with VLA's.

 www.digitalmars.com/dmc/dmcppDownload.html

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

C99 VLAs fit in with the discussion on arrays in D, so I thought I'd gain
some experience with them for comparison. Besides, they didn't look too hard
to do <g>.

"Jan Knepper" <jan smartsoft.cc> wrote in message
news:3D53168B.2B22E091 smartsoft.cc...
 Hey I thought you were back to D! <g>



 Walter wrote:

 with VLA's.

 www.digitalmars.com/dmc/dmcppDownload.html

Jan Knepper <jan smartsoft.cc> writes:

Walter wrote:

 C99 VLAs fit in with the discussion on arrays in D, so I thought I'd gain
 some experience with them for comparison. Besides, they didn't look too hard
 to do <g>.

Well, we're delighted to have it!
Jan

"Matthew Wilson" <matthew thedjournal.com> writes:

What happens if the requested size exceeds the heap capacity?

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:aiv2nm$47b$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 with VLA's.

 www.digitalmars.com/dmc/dmcppDownload.html

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

You should get a 'Stack Overflow' message. Note that although VLAs are
implemented for the 16 bit memory models, they are rather useless because of
the extremely limited stack space.

"Matthew Wilson" <matthew thedjournal.com> wrote in message
news:aivpt4$t4j$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 What happens if the requested size exceeds the heap capacity?

 "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:aiv2nm$47b$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 with VLA's.

 www.digitalmars.com/dmc/dmcppDownload.html

"Matthew Wilson" <matthew thedjournal.com> writes:

So the Stack Overflow is part of the standard?

Also, do you allocate the memory from the stack (a la alloca()), or from the
heap?

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:aivq28$tpt$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 You should get a 'Stack Overflow' message. Note that although VLAs are
 implemented for the 16 bit memory models, they are rather useless because

of
 the extremely limited stack space.

 "Matthew Wilson" <matthew thedjournal.com> wrote in message
 news:aivpt4$t4j$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 What happens if the requested size exceeds the heap capacity?

 "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:aiv2nm$47b$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 with VLA's.

 www.digitalmars.com/dmc/dmcppDownload.html

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

"Matthew Wilson" <matthew thedjournal.com> wrote in message
news:aivr4k$12hn$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 So the Stack Overflow is part of the standard?

I couldn't find anything in the standard about what happens if the
allocation fails.

 Also, do you allocate the memory from the stack (a la alloca()), or from

the
 heap?

It generates a call to alloca().

"Matthew Wilson" <matthew thedjournal.com> writes:

It's bad that there seems to be no direction from the standards as to what
happens during allocation failure. Makes writing standard compliant code
more difficult. I must have a read of the standard when I get a spare minute
(in about 3 years!)

It's good that you're allocating from the stack. Is that itself (as opposed
to getting from the heap) part of the standard? I seem to recall that it
should be allocated from the heap, but the memory is vague.

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:aj0ri7$2erk$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Matthew Wilson" <matthew thedjournal.com> wrote in message
 news:aivr4k$12hn$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 So the Stack Overflow is part of the standard?

 I couldn't find anything in the standard about what happens if the
 allocation fails.

 Also, do you allocate the memory from the stack (a la alloca()), or from

 the
 heap?

 It generates a call to alloca().

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

"Matthew Wilson" <matthew thedjournal.com> wrote in message
news:aj6raq$2mb4$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 It's bad that there seems to be no direction from the standards as to what
 happens during allocation failure. Makes writing standard compliant code
 more difficult. I must have a read of the standard when I get a spare

minute
 (in about 3 years!)

I agree. There are also what appear to me to be errors in the examples
given - perhaps because no compiler existed to try this stuff out on before
it was standardized. The silence on error handling is another mistake. I
also cannot figure out the point the 'static' array index is for (I know
what it does, just not the why.)

 It's good that you're allocating from the stack. Is that itself (as

opposed
 to getting from the heap) part of the standard? I seem to recall that it
 should be allocated from the heap, but the memory is vague.

I don't think the standard makes any mention of that. It's supposed to be
possible to implement standard C on a stackless architecture.

damiandixon netscape.net writes:

In September's issue of CUJ, there is a nice article (starts page 27)
by Stroustrup on VLA's...

Basically, he says there is no standard way of handling memory error's
when declaring a VLA and that the standard does not say that the
memory should be on heap or stack as well as a whole host of
other issues...

As an aside there is also a discussion on the keyword export in
another article, which is worth a read.

In article <aj7675$317m$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
"Matthew Wilson" <matthew thedjournal.com> wrote in message
news:aj6raq$2mb4$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 It's bad that there seems to be no direction from the standards as to what
 happens during allocation failure. Makes writing standard compliant code
 more difficult. I must have a read of the standard when I get a spare

minute
 (in about 3 years!)

I agree. There are also what appear to me to be errors in the examples
given - perhaps because no compiler existed to try this stuff out on before
it was standardized. The silence on error handling is another mistake. I
also cannot figure out the point the 'static' array index is for (I know
what it does, just not the why.)

 It's good that you're allocating from the stack. Is that itself (as

opposed
 to getting from the heap) part of the standard? I seem to recall that it
 should be allocated from the heap, but the memory is vague.

I don't think the standard makes any mention of that. It's supposed to be
possible to implement standard C on a stackless architecture.

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

Thanks for the pointer. I agree with his assessment on the problems with
VLA's.

<damiandixon netscape.net> wrote in message
news:akn8f0$2ftq$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 In September's issue of CUJ, there is a nice article (starts page 27)
 by Stroustrup on VLA's...

 Basically, he says there is no standard way of handling memory error's
 when declaring a VLA and that the standard does not say that the
 memory should be on heap or stack as well as a whole host of
 other issues...

 As an aside there is also a discussion on the keyword export in
 another article, which is worth a read.

 In article <aj7675$317m$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
"Matthew Wilson" <matthew thedjournal.com> wrote in message
news:aj6raq$2mb4$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 It's bad that there seems to be no direction from the standards as to



what
 happens during allocation failure. Makes writing standard compliant



code
 more difficult. I must have a read of the standard when I get a spare

minute
 (in about 3 years!)

I agree. There are also what appear to me to be errors in the examples
given - perhaps because no compiler existed to try this stuff out on


before
it was standardized. The silence on error handling is another mistake. I
also cannot figure out the point the 'static' array index is for (I know
what it does, just not the why.)

 It's good that you're allocating from the stack. Is that itself (as

opposed
 to getting from the heap) part of the standard? I seem to recall that



it
 should be allocated from the heap, but the memory is vague.

I don't think the standard makes any mention of that. It's supposed to be
possible to implement standard C on a stackless architecture.