This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH 0/5] obstacks again


Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com> writes:

> The alternative is to do as Paul suggested and make obstack_blank
> accept a negative length argument, but that would
> - kill >2G obstacks on 32-bit targets,
> - lose the nice symmetry with other obstack functions,
> and obstack_blank_fast is the right interface to use for shrinking.

It would reintroduce the nice symmetry that the *_fast functions are
just optimisations of the non-fast functions (if you know that the
obstack has enough space), without surprising behaviour change.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]