Paul Eggert wrote: > On 10/18/2010 03:25 PM, Bruno Haible wrote: >> variable-length arrays are valid C and C++ syntax. > > Yes, but VLAs are not valid in all contexts. For example, > one cannot declare a static variable or a structure member > that is a variable-length array. Whether it makes sense to > support VLAs (with respect to a feature) depends on the feature. > > For inttostr, as it happens, there's no need to support VLAs > as buffer arguments, because the buffer sizes are always known at > compile time and are quite short. That is why, in practice, > no caller of inttostr uses VLAs. If it were easy to support > VLAs anyway that'd be fine: but the support is hard to follow > and entails extra machine code, which argues for omitting it.
I have to agree. The whole point of inttostr functions is to provide a minimal and robust mechanism for converting integral values to strings. Using a VLA, while not as bad as using asprintf, does defeat much of the purpose. In that respect, you can view rejection of VLA-using code as a feature: it tells the developer (in a backhanded manner ;-) that they should not be using a VLA with inttostr functions.
