> Please explain how your hand rolled implementation of recursion using malloc is better than every C compiler's.
Because I don't use "the" stack and thus don't have stack overflows.
> Have you opened an issue on GCC or Clang so they can fix their buggy C compilers with your brilliant secure ground-breaking memory-less law-of-thermodynamics-defying recursion algorithm? There may be a Turing Award in it for you!
Of course not, it's just trading stack for heap like you can find in any basic CS textbook. But the heap can generally safely grow bigger than the stack and "overflowing" the heap is not a security vulnerability (you do check the return value of malloc, right?). Again, this is the opposite of Turing Award territory, it's all CS 101 stuff.
GCC and Clang prioritise performing well on microbenchmarks over making it practical to implement programs without security vulnerabilities. This is also sadly well known.
Because I don't use "the" stack and thus don't have stack overflows.
> Have you opened an issue on GCC or Clang so they can fix their buggy C compilers with your brilliant secure ground-breaking memory-less law-of-thermodynamics-defying recursion algorithm? There may be a Turing Award in it for you!
Of course not, it's just trading stack for heap like you can find in any basic CS textbook. But the heap can generally safely grow bigger than the stack and "overflowing" the heap is not a security vulnerability (you do check the return value of malloc, right?). Again, this is the opposite of Turing Award territory, it's all CS 101 stuff.
GCC and Clang prioritise performing well on microbenchmarks over making it practical to implement programs without security vulnerabilities. This is also sadly well known.