I have been writing a program where I have a 2d array that changes size if the user wants, as follows:
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
int max_length = 1024;
int memory_length = 16;
int block_length = 64;
void process_input(int memory[memory_length][block_length], char* user_input) {
...
}
int main(void) {
printf("Not sure what to do? Enter 'help'\n");
while (0 == 0) {
int memory[memory_length][block_length];
char user_input[max_length];
printf(">> ");
fgets(user_input, max_length, stdin);
printf("\n");
process_input(memory, user_input);
if (user_input[0] == 'e' && user_input[1] == 'n' && user_input[2] == 'd') {
break;
}
printf("\n");
}
return 0;
}
NOTE: The process_input() function that I made allows the user to play around with the values inside the array 'memory' as well as change the value of memory_length or block_length, hence then changing the length of the array. After the user is done the cycle repeats with a fresh array.
I can use the 2d array perfectly fine, parsing it to any function. However one day I discover that there are functions such as malloc() that allow you to dynamically allocate memory through a pointer. This made me then question:
Should I re-write my whole very complicated program to use malloc and other 'memory functions', or is it okay to keep it this way?
Also as a side question that might be answered by answering the main question:
Every time I declare the 2d array, does the previous contents of the array get free, or do I keep filling up my memory like an amateur?
Finally if there is anything else that you may notice in the code or in my writing please let me know.
Thanks.
Should I re-write my whole very complicated program to use malloc and other 'memory functions', or is it okay to keep it this way?
Probably rewrite it indeed. int memory[memory_length][block_length]; in main() is a variable-length array (VLA). It is allocated with automatic storage and gets the size of those size variables at the point where its declaration is encountered, then it can't be resized from there.
For some reason a lot of beginners seem to think you can resize the VLA by changing the variables originally used to determine it's size, but no such magic relation between the VLA and those variables exists. How to declare variable-length arrays correctly?
The only kind of array in C that allows run-time resizing is one which was allocated dynamically. The only alternative to that is to allocate an array "large enough" and then keep track of how much of the array you actively are using - but it will sit there in memory (and that is likely no big deal).
However, it is not recommended to allocate huge arrays with automatic storage, since those usually end up on the stack and can cause stack overflows. Use either static storage duration or allocated storage (with malloc etc).
Every time I declare the 2d array, does the previous contents of the array get free, or do I keep filling up my memory like an amateur?
You can only declare it once. In case you do so inside a local scope, with automatic storage duration, it does indeed get cleared up every time you leave the scope which it was declared. But that also means that it can't be used outside that scope.
Finally if there is anything else that you may notice in the code or in my writing please let me know.
Yes, get rid of the global variables. There is no reason to use them in this example, avoid them like the plague. For example a function using an already allocated array might pass the sizes along, like in this example:
void process_input (size_t memory_length,
size_t block_length,
int memory[memory_length][block_length],
char* user_input)
In C, local variables, i.e. variables declared within a function, are allocated on the stack. They are only allocated once when the function is first called. The fact that you can declare variables within a while loop can lead to some confusion. The loop does not somehow allocate the memory again and again.
The memory allocated for all local variables is released when the function return.
The main reason that you might want declare a variable inside a loop (besides convenience) is to limit the scope of the variable. In your code above, you cannot access the "memory" variable outside of the while loop. You can easily check this for yourself. Your compiler should raise an error.
Whether the stack or the heap contains more memory depends on your computer architecture. In an embedded system you can often specify whether to allocate more or less memory to the heap or the stack. On a computer with virtual memory, such as a PC, the size of the heap and the stack are only limited by the size of your hard drive and the address space.
Allocating arrays on the heap is not as simple as it might seem. Single dimensional arrays work just as you might imagine, but things get more complicated with multidimensional arrays, so it is probably better to stick with either a locally or statically declared array in your case.
Related
I have been reading that malloc is used for dynamic memory allocation. But if the following code works...
int main(void) {
int i, n;
printf("Enter the number of integers: ");
scanf("%d", &n);
// Dynamic allocation of memory?
int int_arr[n];
// Testing
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
int_arr[i] = i * 10;
}
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
printf("%d ", int_arr[i]);
}
printf("\n");
}
... what is the point of malloc? Isn't the code above just a simpler-to-read way to allocate memory dynamically?
I read on another Stack Overflow answer that if some sort of flag is set to "pedantic", then the code above would produce a compile error. But that doesn't really explain why malloc might be a better solution for dynamic memory allocation.
Look up the concepts for stack and heap; there's a lot of subtleties around the different types of memory. Local variables inside a function live in the stack and only exist within the function.
In your example, int_array only exists while execution of the function it is defined in has not ended, you couldn't pass it around between functions. You couldn't return int_array and expect it to work.
malloc() is used when you want to create a chunk of memory which exists on the heap. malloc returns a pointer to this memory. This pointer can be passed around as a variable (eg returned) from functions and can be used anywhere in your program to access your allocated chunk of memory until you free() it.
Example:
'''C
int main(int argc, char **argv){
int length = 10;
int *built_array = make_array(length); //malloc memory and pass heap pointer
int *array = make_array_wrong(length); //will not work. Array in function was in stack and no longer exists when function has returned.
built_array[3] = 5; //ok
array[3] = 5; //bad
free(built_array)
return 0;
}
int *make_array(int length){
int *my_pointer = malloc( length * sizeof int);
//do some error checking for real implementation
return my_pointer;
}
int *make_array_wrong(int length){
int array[length];
return array;
}
'''
Note:
There are plenty of ways to avoid having to use malloc at all, by pre-allocating sufficient memory in the callers, etc. This is recommended for embedded and safety critical programs where you want to be sure you'll never run out of memory.
Just because something looks prettier does not make it a better choice.
VLAs have a long list of problems, not the least of which they are not a sufficient replacement for heap-allocated memory.
The primary -- and most significant -- reason is that VLAs are not persistent dynamic data. That is, once your function terminates, the data is reclaimed (it exists on the stack, of all places!), meaning any other code still hanging on to it are SOL.
Your example code doesn't run into this problem because you aren't using it outside of the local context. Go ahead and try to use a VLA to build a binary tree, then add a node, then create a new tree and try to print them both.
The next issue is that the stack is not an appropriate place to allocate large amounts of dynamic data -- it is for function frames, which have a limited space to begin with. The global memory pool, OTOH, is specifically designed and optimized for this kind of usage.
It is good to ask questions and try to understand things. Just be careful that you don't believe yourself smarter than the many, many people who took what now is nearly 80 years of experience to design and implement systems that quite literally run the known universe. Such an obvious flaw would have been immediately recognized long, long ago and removed before either of us were born.
VLAs have their place, but it is, alas, small.
Declaring local variables takes the memory from the stack. This has two ramifications.
That memory is destroyed once the function returns.
Stack memory is limited, and is used for all local variables, as well as function return addresses. If you allocate large amounts of memory, you'll run into problems. Only use it for small amounts of memory.
When you have the following in your function code:
int int_arr[n];
It means you allocated space on the function stack, once the function will return this stack will cease to exist.
Image a use case where you need to return a data structure to a caller, for example:
Car* create_car(string model, string make)
{
Car* new_car = malloc(sizeof(*car));
...
return new_car;
}
Now, once the function will finish you will still have your car object, because it was allocated on the heap.
The memory allocated by int int_arr[n] is reserved only until execution of the routine ends (when it returns or is otherwise terminated, as by setjmp). That means you cannot allocate things in one order and free them in another. You cannot allocate a temporary work buffer, use it while computing some data, then allocate another buffer for the results, and free the temporary work buffer. To free the work buffer, you have to return from the function, and then the result buffer will be freed to.
With automatic allocations, you cannot read from a file, allocate records for each of the things read from the file, and then delete some of the records out of order. You simply have no dynamic control over the memory allocated; automatic allocations are forced into a strictly last-in first-out (LIFO) order.
You cannot write subroutines that allocate memory, initialize it and/or do other computations, and return the allocated memory to their callers.
(Some people may also point out that the stack memory commonly used for automatic objects is commonly limited to 1-8 mebibytes while the memory used for dynamic allocation is generally much larger. However, this is an artifact of settings selected for common use and can be changed; it is not inherent to the nature of automatic versus dynamic allocation.)
If the allocated memory is small and used only inside the function, malloc is indeed unnecessary.
If the memory amount is extremely large (usually MB or more), the above example may cause stack overflow.
If the memory is still used after the function returned, you need malloc or global variable (static allocation).
Note that the dynamic allocation through local variables as above may not be supported in some compiler.
This question already has answers here:
Do I really need malloc?
(2 answers)
Closed 2 years ago.
As far as I know, the C compiler (I am using GCC 6) will scan the code in order to:
Finding syntax issues;
Allocating memory to the program (Static allocation concept);
So why does this code work?
int main(){
int integers_amount; // each int has 4 bytes
printf("How many intergers do you wanna store? \n");
scanf("%d", &integers_amount);
int array[integers_amount];
printf("Size of array: %d\n", sizeof(array)); // Should be 4 times integer_amount
for(int i = 0; i < integers_amount; i++){
int integer;
printf("Type the integer: \n");
scanf("%d", &integer);
array[i] = integer;
}
for(int j = 0; j < integers_amount; j++){
printf("Integer typed: %d \n", array[j]);
}
return 0;
}
My point is:
How does the C compiler infer the size of the array during compilation time?
I mean, it was declared but its value has not been informed just yet (Compilation time). I really believed that the compiler allocated the needed amount of memory (in bytes) at compilation time - That is the concept of static allocation matter of fact.
From what I could see, the allocation for the variable 'array' is done during runtime, only after the user has informed the 'size' of the array. Is that correct?
I thought that dynamic allocation was used to use the needed memory only (let's say that I declare an integer array of size 10 because I don't know how many values the user will need to hold there, but I ended up only using 7, so I have a waste of 12 bytes).
If during runtime I have those bytes informed I can allocate only the memory needed. However, it doesn't seem to be the case because from the code we can see that the array is only allocated during runtime.
Can I have some help understanding that?
Thanks in advance.
How does the C compiler infer the size of the array during compilation time?
It's what's called a variable length array or for short a VLA, the size is determined at runtime but it's a one off, you cannot resize anymore. Some compilers even warn you about the usage of such arrays, as they are stored in the stack, which has a very limited size, it can potencially cause a stackoverflow.
From what I could see, the allocation for the variable 'array' is done during runtime, only after the user has informed the 'size' of the array. Is that correct?
Yes, that is correct. That's why these can be dangerous, the compiler won't know what is the size of the array at compile time, so if it's too large there is nothing it can do to avoid problems. For that reason C++ forbids VLA's.
let's say that I declare an integer array of size 10 because I don't know how many values the user will need to hold there, but I ended up only using 7, so I have a waste of 12 bytes
Contrary to fixed size arrays, a variable length array size can be determined at runtime, but when its size is defined you can no longer change it, for that you have dynamic memory allocation (discussed ahead) if you are really set on having the exact size needed, and not one byte more.
Anyway, if you are expecting an outside value to set the size of the array, odds are that it is the size you need, if not, well there is nothing you can do, aside from the mentioned dynamic memory allocation, in any case it's better to have a little more wasted space than too little space.
Can I have some help understanding that?
There are three concepts I find relevant to the discussion:
Fixed size arrays, i.e. int array[10]:
Their size defined at compile time, they cannot be resized and are useful if you already know the size they should have.
Variable length arrays, i.e. int array[size], size being a non constant variable:
Their size is defined at runtime, but can only be set once, they are useful if the size of the array is dependant on external values, e.g. a user input or some value retrived from a file.
Dynamically allocated arrays: i.e. int *array = malloc(sizeof *arr * size), size may or may not be a constant:
These are used when your array will need to be resized, or if it's too large to store in the stack, which has limited size. You can change its size at any point in your code using realloc, which may simply resize the array or, as #Peter reminded, may simply allocate a new array and copy the contents of the old one over.
Variables defined inside functions, like array in your snippet (main is a function like any other!), have "automatic" storage duration; typically, this translates to them being on the "stack", a universal concept for a first in/last out storage which gets built and unbuilt as functions are entered and exited.
The "stack" simply is an address which keeps track of the current edge of unused storage available for local variables of a function. The compiler emits code for moving it "forward" when a function is entered in order to accommodate the memory needs of local variables and to move it "backward" when the program flow leaves the function (the double quotes are there because the stack may as well grow towards smaller addresses).
Typically these stack adjustments upon entering into and returning from functions are computed at compile time; after all, the local variables are all visible in the program code. But principally, nothing keeps a program from changing the stack pointer "on the fly". Very early on, Unixes made use of this and provided a function which dynamically allocates space on the stack, called alloca(). The FreeBSD man page says: "The alloca() function appeared in Version 32V AT&T UNIX"´(which was released in 1979).
alloca behaves very much like alloc except that the storage is lost when the current function returns, and that it underlies the usual stack size restrictions.
So the first part of the answer is that your array does not have static storage duration. The memory where local variables will reside is not known at compile time (for example, a function with local variables in it may or may not be called at all, depending on run-time user input!). If it were, your astonishment would be entirely justified.
The second part of the answer is that array is a variable length array, a fairly new feature of the C programming language which was only added in 1999. It declares an object on the stack whose size is not known until run time (leading to the anti-paradigmatic consequence that sizeof(array) is not a compile time constant!).
One could argue that variable length arrays are only syntactic sugar around an alloca call; but alloca is, although widely available, not part of any standard.
Is there a possible way to make static array of structs points to NULL since I can't delete arrays and I want to clean the memory?
Suppose we have the following code:
struct_x defaultStructX[6];
struct_x requiredStructX [6];
gettingDefaultX(defaultStructX, 6);
for (uint8_t i = 0; i <6; i++)
{
setStructX(requiredStructX[i].index, requiredStructX[i].icirate, requiredStructX[i].icis, requiredStructX[i].iei);
//error handle case
if (status == STATUS_SUCCESS)
{
writeResponse.writeStatus = status_ok; /*This is another struct not important at this point*/
} else
{
errorHandleQciFlowMeter(defaultStructX, 6);
writeResponse.writeStatus = status_nok;
break;
}
}
/*here I want to write code line to clean the defaultStructX from memory. Is it possible? I have tried *defaultStructX[i]= NULL and ##((void*)defaultQciFlowMeter) = NULL; ## and many other methods but it didn't work*/
Is there a possible way to make static array of stucts points to NULL since I can't delete arrays and I want to clean the memory?
No. Arrays are not pointers, nor are the elements of your particular arrays pointers, either. Pointer values cannot be assigned to either the arrays themselves or to the elements, and in particular, NULL cannot be assigned to them.
You can overwrite the memory occupied by the array with, say,
memset(defaultStructX, 0, sizeof(defaultStructX));
That will replace the data previously stored within,* which might be useful if those data were sensitive. The application would then need to assign new, valid values to the array elements before using them again.
Any way around, however, you cannot free the memory of an object with static storage duration, which is any object declared at file scope, outside all functions, or with the static qualifier inside a function. The entire point of static storage duration is for objects' lifetimes to be the entire duration of the program's run. If you want to be able to release the memory then you should allocate space for your arrays dynamically, or, if it works for your particular application, automatically (as a local variable of a well-chosen function).
* In principle. As #chux noted in comments, it may be the case that the compiler chooses to optimize out such an overwrite, which it might do if it could determine that the zeroed out data were never read. If this is a concern, then the best mitigation would probably be to declare the arrays volatile.
struct_x defaultStructX[6];
struct_x requiredStructX [6];
With the above statements, you have reserved memory for the two arrays of structs. This memory will remain allocated to you during the entire lifetime of your program and cannot be de-allocated until your program exits.
However, what you want to store in this memory is completely under your control. What is your definition of 'cleaning from memory'?
Do you haves some sensitive data that you want to erase from memory? You can always memset them to zero (or any other value) with:
memset(defaultStructX, 0x00, sizeof(defaultStructX));
Do you want to physically de-allocate the memory? If you want to have control over allocation and deallocation of chunks of memory, you should do so with malloc and free.
EDIT: Apparently the memset() solution can be derailed by compiler optimizations.
Here is a useful description of this issue from the SEI CERT C page.
You cannot manually deallocate anything that wasn’t allocated with malloc, calloc, or realloc. If you declared your arrays at file scope (outside of any function) or with the static keyword, then their memory won’t be released until the program terminates. Otherwise, their memory will be released when the function in which they were declared exits.
You can overwrite elements not currently in use with zeros or some other “not a value” value, but you cannot free the memory they occupy.
Arrays are not pointers. Expressions of array type are converted to pointers as necessary, but the array object itself is not a pointer.
Is there a possible way to make static array of structs points to NULL since I can't delete arrays and I want to clean the memory?
No. Arrays do not point. The array could be cleared.
I want to write code line to clean the defaultStructX from memory.
Simply assigned zeros to it.
memset() can get optimized out if the compiler sees the data was not subsequently read.
Alternative: use a loop with a pointer to volatile data to avoid loop from being optimized out.
volatile unsigned char *vp = defaultStructX;
for (size_t i = 0; i<sizeof defaultStructX; i++ {
vp[i] = 0;
}
Hmm... On one hand I love the detailed answer offered by John Bollinger and I believe he gave the correct answer for your use case... however...
There is a way to make the statically allocated array appear to point to NULL.
Obviously you can't assign NULL to an array. However, you can make a statically allocated "Array" seem to point to NULL by hiding it behind a pointer.
It might look like this:
#define STRUCT_X_ARRAY_LENGTH 6
struct_x defaultStructX___[STRUCT_X_ARRAY_LENGTH];
struct_x requiredStructX___[STRUCT_X_ARRAY_LENGTH];
struct_x * defaultStructX = defaultStructX___;
struct_x * requiredStructX = requiredStructX___;
gettingDefaultX(defaultStructX, STRUCT_X_ARRAY_LENGTH);
Now you could set the (no longer) "Array" to NULL using:
defaultStructX = NULL;
requiredStructX = NULL;
You could also reset the state (zero out the memory and reassign the correct memory address) using:
defaultStructX = defaultStructX___;
requiredStructX = requiredStructX___;
memset(defaultStructX___, 0 , sizeof(defaultStructX___));
memset(defaultStructX___, 0 , sizeof(requiredStructX___));
Not that this fits your use case, but it's a good enough technique that others might want to know about it.
Well, I can't understand when and why it is needed to allocate memory using malloc.
Here is my code:
#include <stdlib.h>
int main(int argc, const char *argv[]) {
typedef struct {
char *name;
char *sex;
int age;
} student;
// Now I can do two things
student p;
// Or
student *ptr = (student *)malloc(sizeof(student));
return 0;
}
Why is it needed to allocate memory when I can just use student p;?
malloc is used for dynamic memory allocation. As said, it is dynamic allocation which means you allocate the memory at run time. For example, when you don't know the amount of memory during compile time.
One example should clear this. Say you know there will be maximum 20 students. So you can create an array with static 20 elements. Your array will be able to hold maximum 20 students. But what if you don't know the number of students? Say the first input is the number of students. It could be 10, 20, 50 or whatever else. Now you will take input n = the number of students at run time and allocate that much memory dynamically using malloc.
This is just one example. There are many situations like this where dynamic allocation is needed.
Have a look at the man page malloc(3).
You use malloc when you need to allocate objects that must exist beyond the lifetime of execution of the current block (where a copy-on-return would be expensive as well), or if you need to allocate memory greater than the size of that stack (i.e., a 3 MB local stack array is a bad idea).
Before C99 introduced VLAs, you also needed it to perform allocation of a dynamically-sized array. However, it is needed for creation of dynamic data structures like trees, lists, and queues, which are used by many systems. There are probably many more reasons; these are just a few.
Expanding the structure of the example a little, consider this:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, const char *argv[]) {
typedef struct {
char *name;
char *sex;
char *insurance;
int age;
int yearInSchool;
float tuitionDue;
} student;
// Now I can do two things
student p;
// Or
student *p = malloc(sizeof *p);
}
C is a language that implicitly passes by value, rather than by reference. In this example, if we passed 'p' to a function to do some work on it, we would be creating a copy of the entire structure. This uses additional memory (the total of how much space that particular structure would require), is slower, and potentially does not scale well (more on this in a minute). However, by passing *p, we don't pass the entire structure. We only are passing an address in memory that refers to this structure. The amount of data passed is smaller (size of a pointer), and therefore the operation is faster.
Now, knowing this, imagine a program (like a student information system) which will have to create and manage a set of records in the thousands, or even tens of thousands. If you pass the whole structure by value, it will take longer to operate on a set of data, than it would just passing a pointer to each record.
Let's try and tackle this question considering different aspects.
Size
malloc allows you to allocate much larger memory spaces than the one allocated simply using student p; or int x[n];. The reason being malloc allocates the space on heap while the other allocates it on the stack.
The C programming language manages memory statically, automatically, or dynamically. Static-duration variables are allocated in main memory, usually along with the executable code of the program, and persist for the lifetime of the program; automatic-duration variables are allocated on the stack and come and go as functions are called and return. For static-duration and automatic-duration variables, the size of the allocation must be compile-time constant (except for the case of variable-length automatic arrays[5]). If the required size is not known until run-time (for example, if data of arbitrary size is being read from the user or from a disk file), then using fixed-size data objects is inadequate. (from Wikipedia)
Scope
Normally, the declared variables would get deleted/freed-up after the block in which it is declared (they are declared on the stack). On the other hand, variables with memory allocated using malloc remain till the time they are manually freed up.
This also means that it is not possible for you to create a variable/array/structure in a function and return its address (as the memory that it is pointing to, might get freed up). The compiler also tries to warn you about this by giving the warning:
Warning - address of stack memory associated with local variable 'matches' returned
For more details, read this.
Changing the Size (realloc)
As you may have guessed, it is not possible by the normal way.
Error detection
In case memory cannot be allocated: the normal way might cause your program to terminate while malloc will return a NULL which can easily be caught and handled within your program.
Making a change to string content in future
If you create store a string like char *some_memory = "Hello World"; you cannot do some_memory[0] = 'h'; as it is stored as string constant and the memory it is stored in, is read-only. If you use malloc instead, you can change the contents later on.
For more information, check this answer.
For more details related to variable-sized arrays, have a look at this.
malloc = Memory ALLOCation.
If you been through other programming languages, you might have used the new keyword.
Malloc does exactly the same thing in C. It takes a parameter, what size of memory needs to be allocated and it returns a pointer variable that points to the first memory block of the entire memory block, that you have created in the memory. Example -
int *p = malloc(sizeof(*p)*10);
Now, *p will point to the first block of the consecutive 10 integer blocks reserved in memory.
You can traverse through each block using the ++ and -- operator.
In this example, it seems quite useless indeed.
But now imagine that you are using sockets or file I/O and must read packets from variable length which you can only determine while running. Or when using sockets and each client connection need some storage on the server. You could make a static array, but this gives you a client limit which will be determined while compiling.
int numbers*;
numbers = malloc ( sizeof(int) * 10 );
I want to know how is this dynamic memory allocation, if I can store just 10 int items to the memory block ? I could just use the array and store elemets dynamically using index. Why is the above approach better ?
I am new to C, and this is my 2nd day and I may sound stupid, so please bear with me.
In this case you could replace 10 with a variable that is assigned at run time. That way you can decide how much memory space you need. But with arrays, you have to specify an integer constant during declaration. So you cannot decide whether the user would actually need as many locations as was declared, or even worse , it might not be enough.
With a dynamic allocation like this, you could assign a larger memory location and copy the contents of the first location to the new one to give the impression that the array has grown as needed.
This helps to ensure optimum memory utilization.
The main reason why malloc() is useful is not because the size of the array can be determined at runtime - modern versions of C allow that with normal arrays too. There are two reasons:
Objects allocated with malloc() have flexible lifetimes;
That is, you get runtime control over when to create the object, and when to destroy it. The array allocated with malloc() exists from the time of the malloc() call until the corresponding free() call; in contrast, declared arrays either exist until the function they're declared in exits, or until the program finishes.
malloc() reports failure, allowing the program to handle it in a graceful way.
On a failure to allocate the requested memory, malloc() can return NULL, which allows your program to detect and handle the condition. There is no such mechanism for declared arrays - on a failure to allocate sufficient space, either the program crashes at runtime, or fails to load altogether.
There is a difference with where the memory is allocated. Using the array syntax, the memory is allocated on the stack (assuming you are in a function), while malloc'ed arrays/bytes are allocated on the heap.
/* Allocates 4*1000 bytes on the stack (which might be a bit much depending on your system) */
int a[1000];
/* Allocates 4*1000 bytes on the heap */
int *b = malloc(1000 * sizeof(int))
Stack allocations are fast - and often preferred when:
"Small" amount of memory is required
Pointer to the array is not to be returned from the function
Heap allocations are slower, but has the advantages:
Available heap memory is (normally) >> than available stack memory
You can freely pass the pointer to the allocated bytes around, e.g. returning it from a function -- just remember to free it at some point.
A third option is to use statically initialized arrays if you have some common task, that always requires an array of some max size. Given you can spare the memory statically consumed by the array, you avoid the hit for heap memory allocation, gain the flexibility to pass the pointer around, and avoid having to keep track of ownership of the pointer to ensure the memory is freed.
Edit: If you are using C99 (default with the gnu c compiler i think?), you can do variable-length stack arrays like
int a = 4;
int b[a*a];
In the example you gave
int *numbers;
numbers = malloc ( sizeof(int) * 10 );
there are no explicit benefits. Though, imagine 10 is a value that changes at runtime (e.g. user input), and that you need to return this array from a function. E.g.
int *aFunction(size_t howMany, ...)
{
int *r = malloc(sizeof(int)*howMany);
// do something, fill the array...
return r;
}
The malloc takes room from the heap, while something like
int *aFunction(size_t howMany, ...)
{
int r[howMany];
// do something, fill the array...
// you can't return r unless you make it static, but this is in general
// not good
return somethingElse;
}
would consume the stack that is not so big as the whole heap available.
More complex example exists. E.g. if you have to build a binary tree that grows according to some computation done at runtime, you basically have no other choices but to use dynamic memory allocation.
Array size is defined at compilation time whereas dynamic allocation is done at run time.
Thus, in your case, you can use your pointer as an array : numbers[5] is valid.
If you don't know the size of your array when writing the program, using runtime allocation is not a choice. Otherwise, you're free to use an array, it might be simpler (less risk to forget to free memory for example)
Example:
to store a 3-D position, you might want to use an array as it's alwaays 3 coordinates
to create a sieve to calculate prime numbers, you might want to use a parameter to give the max value and thus use dynamic allocation to create the memory area
Array is used to allocate memory statically and in one go.
To allocate memory dynamically malloc is required.
e.g. int numbers[10];
This will allocate memory statically and it will be contiguous memory.
If you are not aware of the count of the numbers then use variable like count.
int count;
int *numbers;
scanf("%d", count);
numbers = malloc ( sizeof(int) * count );
This is not possible in case of arrays.
Dynamic does not refer to the access. Dynamic is the size of malloc. If you just use a constant number, e.g. like 10 in your example, it is nothing better than an array. The advantage is when you dont know in advance how big it must be, e.g. because the user can enter at runtime the size. Then you can allocate with a variable, e.g. like malloc(sizeof(int) * userEnteredNumber). This is not possible with array, as you have to know there at compile time the (maximum) size.