[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH][5] Make temporary stack resizable (fixes #
From: |
Evan Hanson |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH][5] Make temporary stack resizable (fixes #1098) |
Date: |
Mon, 2 Nov 2015 06:55:03 +1300 |
On 2015-11-01 1:36, address@hidden wrote:
> Is this really necessary? I think runtime.c is already complicated
> enough as it is. I understand your intent, but I'm always wary of
> "arbitrary fixes to reasonable limitations, just because they are
> limitations".
I agree about the runtime, and I don't really care about the argument
limit personally, but in this case I think the benefit outweighs the
cost: the change doesn't look too hairy and the memory savings for
programs that don't need crazy-many-args is nothing to sneeze at. Not
always having to pay that cost for a weird and probably stupid use case
is great, IMHO.
Evan
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH][5] Make temporary stack resizable (fixes #1098), Peter Bex, 2015/11/01
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH][5] Make temporary stack resizable (fixes #1098), Arthur Maciel, 2015/11/01
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH][5] Make temporary stack resizable (fixes #1098), felix . winkelmann, 2015/11/02
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH][5] Make temporary stack resizable (fixes #1098), Peter Bex, 2015/11/02
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH][5] Make temporary stack resizable (fixes #1098), felix . winkelmann, 2015/11/02
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH][5] Make temporary stack resizable (fixes #1098), Peter Bex, 2015/11/03
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH][5] Make temporary stack resizable (fixes #1098), John Cowan, 2015/11/04
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH][5] Make temporary stack resizable (fixes #1098), felix . winkelmann, 2015/11/04
- Re: [Chicken-hackers] [PATCH][5] Make temporary stack resizable (fixes #1098),
Evan Hanson <=