[Piglit] [PATCH 2/3] Use alloca instead of variable length arrays

[Jan Vesely]

On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 13:37 -0800, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Jan Vesely <jan.vesely at rutgers.edu> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 12:58 -0800, Matt Turner wrote:
> >> I'm curious what the motivation for removing variably-sized arrays is,
> >> but if I accept that that's a good thing to do then the first patch
> >> makes sense, but I don't understand this one.
> >>
> >> How is a variably-size array different from using alloca()?
> >
> > variable size arrays are a c99 feature not supported by msvc (that's why
> > there is a warning). I don't know which parts actually do need to build
> > using msvc, but it seemed like a good idea to reduce warning output (and
> > improve consistency with code that needs to build using msvc).
> >
> > In the first patch I used alloca+free, because it looked nicer than
> > doing size arithmetic. The other cases allocate byte arrays, and the
> > only difference is that alloca (_alloca) is supported by msvc.
> 
> Okay, then this patch doesn't do anything useful, since these tests
> shouldn't be built with MSVC. dma_bufs are a Linux thing.

yes, I understand that, the point was not to build them using msvc.

the patch usefulness is in enabling switch Wvla to error instead of
warning. other than that, it just reduces warning output.

if you think it reduces readability, and the switch to -Werror=vla
should not be made, I won't argue against dropping it.
-- 
Jan Vesely <jan.vesely at rutgers.edu>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/piglit/attachments/20141212/35fb2ba6/attachment-0001.sig>