Talk:Memory allocation: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
No edit summary |
(shmget suitable?) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
About langs like C, the task requires explanation about the fact that local variables are "allocated" on the stack (likely), so that a way of "allocating" 100 integers is simply <code>int ints[100]</code> ... even though this is not an ''explicit allocation''? --[[User:ShinTakezou|ShinTakezou]] 16:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC) |
About langs like C, the task requires explanation about the fact that local variables are "allocated" on the stack (likely), so that a way of "allocating" 100 integers is simply <code>int ints[100]</code> ... even though this is not an ''explicit allocation''? --[[User:ShinTakezou|ShinTakezou]] 16:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC) |
||
: Yes, please do explain the difference in lifetime and syntax of "auto" vs. malloc() allocations. --[[User:IanOsgood|IanOsgood]] 16:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC) |
: Yes, please do explain the difference in lifetime and syntax of "auto" vs. malloc() allocations. --[[User:IanOsgood|IanOsgood]] 16:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC) |
||
:: POSIX should have also shmget and friends for shared memory (shared among processes, not threads)... but sincerely I've never used them :D --[[User:ShinTakezou|ShinTakezou]] 17:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:39, 26 May 2009
About langs like C, the task requires explanation about the fact that local variables are "allocated" on the stack (likely), so that a way of "allocating" 100 integers is simply int ints[100]
... even though this is not an explicit allocation? --ShinTakezou 16:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, please do explain the difference in lifetime and syntax of "auto" vs. malloc() allocations. --IanOsgood 16:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- POSIX should have also shmget and friends for shared memory (shared among processes, not threads)... but sincerely I've never used them :D --ShinTakezou 17:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)