per at bothner.com
Tue Oct 16 04:12:42 CEST 2018
On 10/15/18 6:50 PM, Andy Green wrote:
>>> or only the object last allocated in any chunk may be deallocated, which is what you are saying...
>> No, that is not a restriction.
> IIUI, it actually is.
I meant the obstack API does not have the restriction that "only the object last allocated in any chunk may be deallocated".
> I guess this is why it's a "stack"... you can basically pop yourself back to an earlier state freeing everything inbetween.
>> You might not want to use obstacks for licensing reasons (LGPL), anyway.
> I already wrote my own implementation from scratch, including the conception... I don't need obstack.
I was just trying to say: Assuming you don't want LGPL licensing concerns, it wasn't
wasted effort to write your own implementation.
>> However, I do suggest adding a note like:
>> Lwsac is variant of the [obstack](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstack) data structure.
> Eh... while I'm happy to acknowledge it pre-existed what I wrote...
Well, the data structure has a "traditional" (if obscure) name. And as I wrote in my first message
"us old-fart GNU guys" will think "is this different from an obstack?", so it make sense to
> ... I never even heard of it until you mentioned it thismorning. It's simply a case of a good idea getting evolved again independently.
> I certainly owe Stallman, GNU for GCC and their other work, but I don't owe this any special acknowledgment.
I agree. I just suggest a reference to the "obstack" name.
per at bothner.com http://per.bothner.com/
More information about the Libwebsockets