To: scuffer@hups.apana.org.au Cc: "ELKS List" <linux-8086@vger.rutgers.edu> From: "Joel N. Weber II" <devnull@gnu.ai.mit.edu> Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 03:19:41 -0400 Newsgroups: linux.dev.8086 Date: Sun, 13 Jul 1997 01:30:54 +1000 (EST) From: David Murn <scuffer@hups.apana.org.au> X-Sender: scuffer@grunge.hpy.hell On Sat, 12 Jul 1997, Joel N. Weber II wrote: > In general, local variables are stored on the stack. So the stack > grows by an appropriate amount when you enter the function. Globals > are stored in a part of the program for global variables. > > malloc is only really used for dynamic allocation. Well wouldn't it make sense to allocate space on a need-to-use basis? Even if just to save a bit of space in our DS. Who knows, it might even reduce our code size, by calling malloc instead of assuming a pointer is pointing to a fixed size. I don't think it would reduce code size. Calling malloc has to involve at least pushing an int on the stack and making a function call. And then storing the result. Note that you have to have a pointer to anything malloced. That pointer has to be stored somewhere. The stack might be a good place to store that pointer. Also, each malloc'd area has a small header stating how long the malloc'd object is. Does this make sense, or do I need to restate this more persuasively?
From Unofficial Linux-8086 Mailing List Archive (ULMLA)
Maintained by Robert
Robert's Mailing List Archive Page
Archive created with babymail