[19210] in Kerberos_V5_Development
RE: C99 Features
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Danilo Almeida)
Wed Jun 17 21:16:05 2015
From: "Danilo Almeida" <dalmeida@mit.edu>
To: "nico@cryptonector.com" <nico@cryptonector.com>,
"npmccallum@redhat.com"
<npmccallum@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 01:13:40 +0000
Message-ID: <33E2E06D4C33464A97D0F4884B25430658AB25C8@OC11EXPO25.exchange.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20150617230626.GH6117@localhost>
Content-Language: en-US
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "'krbdev@mit.edu'" <krbdev@mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: krbdev-bounces@mit.edu
<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).
</quote>
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)?
- Danilo
_______________________________________________
krbdev mailing list krbdev@mit.edu
https://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/krbdev
