Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.questions:12345 comp.os.386bsd.development:2382 comp.os.386bsd.misc:3192 Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions,comp.os.386bsd.development,comp.os.386bsd.misc Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!munnari.oz.au!constellation!news.uoknor.edu!ns1.nodak.edu!netnews.nwnet.net!pnl-oracle!osi-east2.es.net!lll-winken.llnl.gov!ames!agate!doc.ic.ac.uk!uknet!festival!edcogsci!richard From: richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) Subject: Re: Why does FreeBSD 1.1.5 say gets() is unsafe? Message-ID: <CuDGIo.Jn6@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> Organization: HCRC, University of Edinburgh References: <311m2e$o33@agate.berkeley.edu> <324v1b$14g@boavista.bln.sub.org> <1994Aug10.151130.1017@rhodes> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 1994 13:08:47 GMT Lines: 24 In article <1994Aug10.151130.1017@rhodes> stuart@zen.mathcs.rhodes.edu (Brian L. Stuart) writes: >At the risk of picking an excessively fine nit (and mixing my metaphors), >a good argument can be made for doubling the size of the array rather >than adding a fixed amount. ... >It is true that doubling will lead to waste bounded by n >whereas adding a fixed amount bounds the waste by the increment. You can of course reduce the waste by increasing the space by, say, 20% each time instead of doubling. This will waste at most 20% of the required space and still be much faster than adding a constant amount in the cases where it matters. >It seems to be the classic time vs. space tradeoff. Right, and the tradeoff allows plenty of points between the two you mention. -- Richard -- Richard Tobin, HCRC, Edinburgh University R.Tobin@ed.ac.uk Ooooh! I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective.