The code is as follow :
#include <stdlib.h>
int num = 3; // Static external variable
int *ptr = #
int main(void)
{
int num2 = 4; // Automatic variable
int *ptr2 = &num2;
free(ptr); //Free static variable
free(ptr2); //Free automatic variable
return 0;
}
I try to compile the above code and it works, I'm curious does the free() function able to free both the static variable and also automatic variable? Or basically it does nothing?
Calling free() on a pointer not returned by memory allocating functions(malloc,calloc etc) causes Undefined Behavior.
Your code has an Undefined Behavior, So the compiler does not need to give you any diagnostic of it and it can show any behavior, it might work, or crash, or literally do anything.
Just avoid writing code which causes an Undefined Behavior is the only solution.
You shouldn't do that. free is only used for memory dynamically allocated from heap by malloc family of functions.
Memory for num is statically allocated in data segment and can't be released. Memory for num2 is allocated in the main's call stack frame and will be released as soon as main returns.
What actually happens depend on implementation of free. There are usually specific data structures maintained in heap to help malloc/free track the allocated and free memory areas. free expects these data structures to be somewhere around the place its argument points to. An when you pass it a pointer which doesn't point to a malloc-allocated heap area, it'll consider garbage data as some useful information and do some strange things. And you're lucky if the result is just an immediate program crash.
Related
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdbool.h>
#include <string.h>
char* test() {
char* s = "Hello World";
size_t len = strlen(s);
char* t = malloc(sizeof(char)*(len+1));
strcpy(t, s);
free(t);
return t;
};
int main(void) {
printf("%s\n", test());
return 0;
};
I would like to allocate and de-allocate memory inside the function. I tested this code and works, but I am wondering:
Why does this work?
Is it good practice to use the value of a freed pointer in main ?
Once you call free on a pointer, the memory it pointed to is no longer valid. Attempting to use a pointer to freed memory triggers undefined behavior. In this particular case it happened to work, but there's no guarantee of that.
If the function returns allocated memory, it is the responsibility of the caller to free it:
char* test() {
char* s = "Hello World";
size_t len = strlen(s);
char* t = malloc(sizeof(char)*(len+1));
strcpy(t, s);
return t;
};
int main(void) {
char *t = test();
printf("%s\n", t);
free(t);
return 0;
};
malloc reserves memory for use.
free releases that reservation. In general, it does not make the memory go away, it does not change the contents of that memory, and it does not alter the value of the pointer that held the address.
After free(t), the bytes of t still contain the same bit settings they did before the free. Then return t; returns those bits to the caller.
When main passes those bits to printf, printf uses them as the address to get the characters for %s. Since nothing has changed them, they are printed.
That is why you got the behavior you did with this program. However, none of it is guaranteed. Once free was called with t, the memory reservation was gone. Something else in your program could have used that memory. For example, printf might have allocated a buffer for its own internal use, and that could have used the same memory.
For the most part, malloc and free are just methods of coordinating use of memory, so that different parts of your program do not try to use the same memory at the same time for different purposes. When you only have one part of your program using allocated memory, there are no other parts of your program to interfere with that. So the lack of coordination did not cause your program to fail. If you had multiple routines in your program using allocated memory, then attempting to use memory after it has been released is more likely to encounter problems.
Additionally, once the memory has been freed, the compiler may treat a pointer to it as if it has no fixed value. The return t; statement is not required to return any particular value.
It doesn't matter where do you free() a pointer. Once it is free()d, the pointer is not deferrenciable anymore (neither inside nor ouside the function where it was free()d)
The purpose of free() is to return the memory allocated with malloc() so the semantics are that, once you have freed a chunk of memory, it is not anymore usable.
In C, all parameters are passed by value, so free() cannot change the value expression you passed to it, and this is the reason the pointer is not changed into an invalid pointer value (like NULL) but you are advised that no more uses of the pointer can be done without incurring in Undefined Behaviour.
There could be a solution in the design of free() and it is to pass the pointer variable that holds the pointer by address, and so free() would be able to turn the pointer into a NULL. But this not only takes more work to do, but free() doesn't know how many copies you have made of the value malloc() gave to you... so it is impossible to know how many references you have over there to be nullified. That approach makes it impossible to give free() the responsibility of nullifying the reference to the returned memory.
So, if you think that free doesn't turn the pointer into NULL and for some strange reason you can still use the memory returned, don't do it anymore, because you'll be making mistakes.
You are adviced! :)
What happens to the data that is present in a memory location that has just been freed by a free() ? Is that data also deleted and the memory will now have a garbage value ? Or that data still persists there untill a new data is stored in that memory location (in future) ?
I mean, for code below:
int *ptr;
ptr = malloc(sizeof(int));
*ptr = 1;
// Suppose ptr = 2000
//Free now
free(ptr);
// My question is what is the value stored in memory address 2000 now ?
// Is it still '1' or some garbage value ?
The result is unpredictable. There are several options that can happen. The point is that you cannot rely on any behavior of the memory released by free()
Some examples:
the memory can be untouched (remain the same as it is with the same data).
It can be given to another memory allocation, in which case it can be written over at any point.
It can be zeroed.
The page containing the memory can be returned to the OS, removing it from the memory map of your process, making your program crash if you try to access it.
Whether or not the value is overwritten is undefined. Once free is called it is allowed to leave the memory as-is or it can overwrite it, but if you are interested in security you should overwrite it yourself before deallocating it. Speaking of deallocation, free doesn't have to give the memory back to the operating system, and in fact in many cases it won't, instead it will keep the memory allocated to your program so that the next time you call malloc it can simply give you back the same memory and avoid having to make more system calls, since the time it takes for memory allocation from the operating system is generally considered a less efficient use of resources than the program keeping a bit more memory allocated than it needs.
I know that using the C free() function the memory used is released, but neither the pointer, nor the value contained in the memory is modified! free() only tells that the memory may be used for other purposes. (It may be some libraries implementations clean the freed memory or the pointer value, but this should not be the standard!)
I tried the code below with gcc (Ubuntu 4.8.2-19ubuntu1) 4.8.2
int main(void)
{
int *i,j;
i=malloc(100*sizeof(int));
for(j=0;j<100;j++)
i[j]=j+1;
printf("%p %d\n",i,i[0]);
free(i);
printf("%p %d\n",i,i[0]);
return 0;
}
The output results (as I expected) is:
0x1de2010 1
0x1de2010 1
Malloc() is a library function. The answer depends upon how the library is implemented.
Most (if not all) mallocs prefix a header to the memory block returned. This is usually modified.
Some mallocs append a trailer to the memory block and write something to it. This is used to detect buffer overruns.
Some frees() will overwrite the write the returned memory with some bit pattern to detect subsequent writes.
There are a lot of mallocs out there that you can download and link with your application so you can get nearly any behavior you want by linking the malloc you want with your application.
It depends on the compiler. If you are using gcc then after free value of that memory is become 0.
Here is a sample code:
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
int main ( void )
{
int *ptr = NULL;
ptr = malloc (sizeof(int));
*ptr = 5;
printf ( "\n value of *ptr = %d", *ptr );
free ( ptr );
printf ( "\n value of *ptr = %d", *ptr );
return ( 0 );
}
o/p:
./a.out
value of *ptr = 5
value of *ptr = 0
./a.out
value of *ptr = 5
value of *ptr = 0
./a.out
value of *ptr = 5
value of *ptr = 0
Dereferencing a freed pointer leads to undefined behavior, which means anything is allowed to happen.
Most likely, you'll get some garbage value, but you might also trigger a segmentation fault, which will crash your program. Even so, neither of those behaviors are guaranteed, and you shouldn't rely on them.
Hi I have following code
#include <stdio.h>
#include <conio.h>
typedef struct test
{
int a;
int b;
int c[10];
}tester;
typedef struct done
{
tester* t;
int nn;
}doner;
void main()
{
doner d;
d.t = (tester*)malloc(sizeof(d.t));
d.t->a = 10;
d.t->c[0] = 10;
printf("%d\n", d.t->a);
getch();
return;
}
I think the statement:
d.t = (tester*)malloc(sizeof(d.t));
is incorrect it should be:
d.t = (tester*)malloc(sizeof(tester));
but when I run this code it is not crashing please let me the why is this.
The fact that it is not crashing is because it has undefined behavior. The correct code is the second one, but no need for casting.
d.t = malloc(sizeof(tester));
Also, You need to free the malloc'ed pointer.
On many system, the heap is not checked when writing to the malloc'ed buffer, but only when freeing the allocated memory. In such case, you will probably get some kind of crash when you free the memory.
The fact that it's not crashing is a big reason why these sort of memory allocation bugs are so insidious and hard to detect. Your program only allocates the one structure, and doesn't fill it up, so the fact that it runs past the amount of memory allocated to it doesn't affect anything else.
If your program made more use of dynamically-allocated memory, then either the calls to malloc/free would trigger a crash because your structure overwrote the heap's linking metadata, or other parts of the program writing to their own malloc'ed data would overwrite your structure. Either way, not pretty.
Yes, you're right. It should be sizeof(tester), because d.t is just a pointer.
Now if you write sizeof(d.t) you invoke Undefined Behavior which is not a guarantee of crash. The program may run correctly, run incorrectly, crash, or order a pizza. There is no guarantee of what will happen with a program that has undefined behavior, even prior to the construct that leads to it.
As freeing the malloced memory - in this small sample program you don't need to worry about it, because the system will free the memory after your program exits, but in general you should try to free whatever you've allocated so as to avoid memory leaks in larger programs.
By default, the linker asks the OS to allocate 1MiB of (stack) memory for the program at the start-up. Your program doesn't crash because all of the references are still in the same memory (same address space) which was reserved by the OS for your program. Technically you haven't allocated that memory, but as the pointers are still in the valid memory range so your program can access it.
This is just like, in most cases, you can write to d.t->c[10] (although valid indexes are 0-9)
Crashes occur when pointers are used which correspond to memory locations outside the allocated memory. Google Page Fault for detailed understanding, if you are interested.
The code is as follow :
#include <stdlib.h>
int num = 3; // Static external variable
int *ptr = #
int main(void)
{
int num2 = 4; // Automatic variable
int *ptr2 = &num2;
free(ptr); //Free static variable
free(ptr2); //Free automatic variable
return 0;
}
I try to compile the above code and it works, I'm curious does the free() function able to free both the static variable and also automatic variable? Or basically it does nothing?
Calling free() on a pointer not returned by memory allocating functions(malloc,calloc etc) causes Undefined Behavior.
Your code has an Undefined Behavior, So the compiler does not need to give you any diagnostic of it and it can show any behavior, it might work, or crash, or literally do anything.
Just avoid writing code which causes an Undefined Behavior is the only solution.
You shouldn't do that. free is only used for memory dynamically allocated from heap by malloc family of functions.
Memory for num is statically allocated in data segment and can't be released. Memory for num2 is allocated in the main's call stack frame and will be released as soon as main returns.
What actually happens depend on implementation of free. There are usually specific data structures maintained in heap to help malloc/free track the allocated and free memory areas. free expects these data structures to be somewhere around the place its argument points to. An when you pass it a pointer which doesn't point to a malloc-allocated heap area, it'll consider garbage data as some useful information and do some strange things. And you're lucky if the result is just an immediate program crash.
I've read conflicting information on the internet about this. To the best of my knowledge all variables in a function only exist for the life time of the function and so this shouldn't be necessary. But with dynamic pointer arrays I'm not sure.
Thanks
You don't free pointers - they are cleaned up automatically. What you need to free is the memory that was acquired by malloc. You use pointers to access that memory.
Put laconically: Every pointer you get from malloc has to go to free exactly once. Nothing more, nothing less.
It depends on where the memory referenced by the pointer has been allocated.
There are fundamentally 2 ways of allocating space in C.
Using the stack :
void foo(){
int stack_variable = 10;
int *stack_pointer = &stack_variable; //bar shouldn't be freed.
}
Using the heap:
void foo(){
int * heap_pointer = (int *) malloc(sizeof(int)); //heap_pointer need to be freed somewhere
}
In the first case there is no problem: memory allocated in the stack will be released when the function returns. Even if you are using a pointer, and it points to some data in the stack, free isn't necessary. Be careful to not use a pointer to data allocated in the stack when the data itself goes out of scope:
int * foo(){
int stack_variable = 10;
int *ptr = &stack_variable;
return ptr;
}
int * ptr = foo(); // you have a problem here: ptr points to a memory region that no longer exist!
In the second case you are using the heap so you need to use free somewhere, to explicitly release it.
If you have allocated data using malloc/calloc, you need to free the data.
Addition due to curious comment by #Julia Childe:
Well, the point of allocating dynamic memory is that it will remain there till you explicitly free it. This enables you to pass pointers both from and to functions and you are not limited by the scope of a specific function, i.e. main.
Thereby, you can allocate memory for data when you need to and not in advance, thus dynamic memory.
If we did not have this ability, we would have to know how much memory space we would use at compile time.
Hope this clears out some question marks.