Displaying 1 result from an estimated 1 matches for "998594".
Did you mean:
968594
2008 May 01
2
[LLVMdev] optimization assumes malloc return is non-null
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008, David Vandevoorde wrote:
> Note that more interesting optimizations are possible. E.g., it's
> perfectly valid to transform:
>
> void f(size_t n) {
> char *str = (char*)malloc(n);
> // use str[0 .. 99 ]
> free(str);
> }
>
> into
>
> void f(size_t n) {
> char *str = (char*)alloca(n);
> // use str[0 .. 99 ]
> }