"H. Peter Anvin" [off-list ref] writes:
Wouldn't this be a good case for using alloca()?
Perhaps, but considering that (1) this function is not something
frequently called anyway, and (2) the proposed change would make
it the first alloca() user, and (3) this is compatibility
replacement function, I'd rather choose to keep it "old, known
to work at more places" malloc/free pair, and not having to
worry about it.
But now you quote the patch, sizeof(char) looks funny. Isn't it
always 1 by definition?