This question already has answers here:
Can a local variable's memory be accessed outside its scope?
(20 answers)
Undefined, unspecified and implementation-defined behavior
(9 answers)
Closed 2 years ago.
Since i am new to C Language i was learning it from tutorials point when i encountered a peculiarity in functions which got my head banging while understanding it.
I have learnt that if variables are defined inside a function then there scope is local to that function and whenever the control transfers from function the variables are no more available and cleaned.
But its not in the case i have created, the program below is still printing the value of variable p which is defined in the test function so when control from test function is transferred why i am still able to get its value? its still printing the value of variable p that is 80 in screen why?
#include <stdio.h>
int *test();
int main()
{
int *ab
ab = test();
printf("%d\n",*ab);
return 0;
}
int *test()
{
int p = 80;
return (&p);
}
Help me understand this peculiarity Please.
What you are experiencing is a symptom of undefined behavior.
A variable's address is no longer valid after its lifetime ends. When you attempt to dereference that address, you may see the value you had before, or you may see something else.
Try duplicating the printf call in main and you'll likely see a different value.
What is most likely happening is that before the first call to printf the area of memory that contained p hadn't yet been overwritten. Then when printf is actually called, the stack frame for that function is using the same memory that the stack frame for test was using and the memory previously used by p is now overwritten. So when you dereferences ab in main after calling printf you'll see whatever value that function placed there.
Accessing an out-of-scope variable is Undefined Behaviour , and hence, by definition, results can vary infinitely and unpredictably, as variables change (compiler flags, OS, etc.)
Your variable does go out of scope but this only means it is no longer 'reserved'. However, unlike newer languages where this may raise compile-time errors, in C this is merely a warning, which may appear if you specifically ask the compiler to give you extra warnings.
So the code will compile.
Here, the variable goes out of scope, but, assumably, no further usage of memory occurs , and so the value at the address of test stays same . If more variables were declared/initialised/used , then likely that address would have been overwritten with another value, and you would have printed something unexpected - to be real, even this result was unexpected, hence your question !
The thing to remember is - variables in C are like chairs in a hall(which is akin to memory). The chair's position, the number of chairs is all static/fixed. What can be changed is who sits at what chair.
So, if you ask a friend to sit at a convenient chair and 5 minutes later tell him he is no longer required , whether he stays there or gets up and someone takes his place is something you cannot predict without looking and reading at an out-of-scope address is similarly undefined , since it cannot be predicted beforehand !
Other analogies may be parking spaces, ship-containers, etc.
The difference is that the address won't be overwritten / 'deleted' until something else comes up which needs to be stored (this is also how Disks manage 'deletion' which is actually nothing but un-reserving hardware locations) .
And when you think about it, it makes a lot of sense from the efficiency standpoint - you no longer have to waste time doing a useless 'overwrite with 0' or whatever and instead only write when you have a real value to store to memory !
( 1 operation instead of 2, half the work.)
Even though the variable shouldn't be "existing" anymore, the computer is a little bit lazy, and it won't delete the value at an address.
That is how you can manipulate the memory, if you try to see memory that doesn't belong to your program, you'll be able to see some weird values, because they stay in the memory even though they aren't used anymore.
Here is an example that may illustrate the UB you're looking at:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <time.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int *test();
void run_random();
int main()
{
srand(time(NULL));
int *ab;
int i=0, N = 5;
for (i=0; i<N; ++i){
ab = test();
run_random();
printf("%d\n",*ab);
}
return 0;
}
int *test()
{
int p = 80;
return (&p);
}
void run_random()
{
int i=0, N=1000;
for (i=0; i<N; ++i){
int rvar = rand();
}
}
In your code, the variable from test() happens to still have the expected value on the stack memory. This is what I see when re-running the function in a loop - *ab is still equal to 80, you can see it too if you comment out the run_random() call.
But when I add the second call, the call to run_random() - I start getting ab equal to N in the run_random() i.e. 1000, as that memory location is now populated with a different variable's value (it was free to use by the OS to begin with, as soon as test() stopped executing).
In your case you may end up seeing something else, of course, perhaps even still the expected value. That is the point of UB, you don't really know what will pop-up.
Related
I've written a function that returns an array whilst I know that I should return a dynamically allocated pointer instead, but still I wanted to know what happens when I am returning an array declared locally inside a function (without declaring it as static), and I got surprised when I noticed that the memory of the internal array in my function wasn't deallocated, and I got my array back to main.
The main:
int main()
{
int* arr_p;
arr_p = demo(10);
return 0;
}
And the function:
int* demo(int i)
{
int arr[10] = { 0 };
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
arr[i] = i;
}
return arr;
}
When I dereference arr_p I can see the 0-9 integers set in the demo function.
Two questions:
How come when I examined arr_p I saw that its address is the same as arr which is in the demo function?
How come demo_p is pointing to data which is not deallocated (the 0-9 numbers) already in demo? I expected that arr inside demo will be deallocated as we got out of demo scope.
One of the things you have to be careful of when programming is to pay good attention to what the rules say, and not just to what seems to work. The rules say you're not supposed to return a pointer to a locally-allocated array, and that's a real, true rule.
If you don't get an error when you write a program that returns a pointer to a locally-allocated array, that doesn't mean it was okay. (Although, it means you really ought to get a newer compiler, because any decent, modern compiler will warn about this.)
If you write a program that returns a pointer to a locally-allocated array and it seems to work, that doesn't mean it was okay, either. Be really careful about this: In general, in programming, but especially in C, seeming to work is not proof that your program is okay. What you really want is for your program to work for the right reasons.
Suppose you rent an apartment. Suppose, when your lease is up, and you move out, your landlord does not collect your key from you, but does not change the lock, either. Suppose, a few days later, you realize you forgot something in the back of one closet. Suppose, without asking, you sneak back to try to collect it. What happens next?
As it happens, your key still works in the lock. Is this a total surprise, or mildly unexpected, or guaranteed to work?
As it happens, your forgotten item still is in the closet. It has not yet been cleared out. Is this a total surprise, or mildly unexpected, or guaranteed to happen?
In the end, neither your old landlord, nor the police, accost you for this act of trespass. Once more, is this a total surprise, or mildly unexpected, or just about completely expected?
What you need to know is that, in C, reusing memory you're no longer allowed to use is just about exactly analogous to sneaking back in to an apartment you're no longer renting. It might work, or it might not. Your stuff might still be there, or it might not. You might get in trouble, or you might not. There's no way to predict what will happen, and there's no (valid) conclusion you can draw from whatever does or doesn't happen.
Returning to your program: local variables like arr are usually stored on the call stack, meaning they're still there even after the function returns, and probably won't be overwritten until the next function gets called and uses that zone on the stack for its own purposes (and maybe not even then). So if you return a pointer to locally-allocated memory, and dereference that pointer right away (before calling any other function), it's at least somewhat likely to "work". This is, again, analogous to the apartment situation: if no one else has moved in yet, it's likely that your forgotten item will still be there. But it's obviously not something you can ever depend on.
arr is a local variable in demo that will get destroyed when you return from the function. Since you return a pointer to that variable, the pointer is said to be dangling. Dereferencing the pointer makes your program have undefined behavior.
One way to fix it is to malloc (memory allocate) the memory you need.
Example:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int* demo(int n) {
int* arr = malloc(sizeof(*arr) * n); // allocate
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
arr[i] = i;
}
return arr;
}
int main() {
int* arr_p;
arr_p = demo(10);
printf("%d\n", arr_p[9]);
free(arr_p) // free the allocated memory
}
Output:
9
How come demo_p is pointing to data which is not deallocated (the 0-9 numbers) already in demo? I expected that arr inside demo will be deallocated as we got out of demo scope.
The life of the arr object has ended and reading the memory addresses previously occupied by arr makes your program have undefined behavior. You may be able to see the old data or the program may crash - or do something completely different. Anything can happen.
… I noticed that the memory of the internal array in my function wasn't deallocated…
Deallocation of memory is not something you can notice or observe, except by looking at the data that records memory reservations (in this case, the stack pointer). When memory is reserved or released, that is just a bookkeeping process about what memory is available or not available. Releasing memory does not necessarily erase memory or immediately reuse it for another purpose. Looking at the memory does not necessarily tell you whether it is in use or not.
When int arr[10] = { 0 }; appears inside a function, it defines an array that is allocated automatically when the function starts executing (or at certain times within the function execution if the definition is in some nested scope). This is commonly done by adjusting the stack pointer. In common systems, programs have a region of memory called the stack, and a stack pointer contains an address that marks the end of the portion of the stack that is currently reserved for use. When a function starts executing, the stack pointer is changed to reserve more memory for that function’s data. When execution of the function ends, the stack pointer is changed to release that memory.
If you keep a pointer to that memory (how you can do that is another matter, discussed below), you will not “notice” or “observe” any change to that memory immediately after the function returns. That is why you see the value of arr_p is the address that arr had, and it is why you see the old data in that memory.
If you call some other function, the stack pointer will be adjusted for the new function, that function will generally use the memory for its own purposes, and then the contents of that memory will have changed. The data you had in arr will be gone. A common example of this that beginners happen across is:
int main(void)
{
int *p = demo(10);
// p points to where arr started, and arr’s data is still there.
printf("arr[3] = %d.\n", p[3]);
// To execute this call, the program loads data from p[3]. Since it has
// not changed, 3 is loaded. This is passed to printf.
// Then printf prints “arr[3] = 3.\n”. In doing this, it uses memory
// on the stack. This changes the data in the memory that p points to.
printf("arr[3] = %d.\n", p[3]);
// When we try the same call again, the program loads data from p[3],
// but it has been changed, so something different is printed. Two
// different things are printed by the same printf statement even
// though there is no visible code changing p[3].
}
Going back to how you can have a copy of a pointer to memory, compilers follow rules that are specified abstractly in the C standard. The C standard defines an abstract lifetime of the array arr in demo and says that lifetime ends when the function returns. It further says the value of a pointer becomes indeterminate when the lifetime of the object it points to ends.
If your compiler is simplistically generating code, as it does when you compile using GCC with -O0 to turn off optimization, it typically keeps the address in p and you will see the behaviors described above. But, if you turn optimization on and compile more complicated programs, the compiler seeks to optimize the code it generates. Instead of mechanically generating assembly code, it tries to find the “best” code that performs the defined behavior of your program. If you use a pointer with indeterminate value or try to access an object whose lifetime has ended, there is no defined behavior of your program, so optimization by the compiler can produce results that are unexpected by new programmers.
As you know dear, the existence of a variable declared in the local function is within that local scope only. Once the required task is done the function terminates and the local variable is destroyed afterwards. As you are trying to return a pointer from demo() function ,but the thing is the array to which the pointer points to will get destroyed once we come out of demo(). So indeed you are trying to return a dangling pointer which is pointing to de-allocated memory. But our rule suggests us to avoid dangling pointer at any cost.
So you can avoid it by re-initializing it after freeing memory using free(). Either you can also allocate some contiguous block of memory using malloc() or you can declare your array in demo() as static array. This will store the allocated memory constant also when the local function exits successfully.
Thank You Dear..
#include<stdio.h>
#define N 10
int demo();
int main()
{
int* arr_p;
arr_p = demo();
printf("%d\n", *(arr_p+3));
}
int* demo()
{
static int arr[N];
for(i=0;i<N;i++)
{
arr[i] = i;
}
return arr;
}
OUTPUT : 3
Or you can also write as......
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#define N 10
int* demo() {
int* arr = (int*)malloc(sizeof(arr) * N);
for(int i = 0; i < N; i++)
{
arr[i]=i;
}
return arr;
}
int main()
{
int* arr_p;
arr_p = demo();
printf("%d\n", *(arr_p+3));
free(arr_p);
return 0;
}
OUTPUT : 3
Had the similar situation when i have been trying to return char array from the function. But i always needed an array of a fixed size.
Solved this by declaring a struct with a fixed size char array in it and returning that struct from the function:
#include <time.h>
typedef struct TimeStamp
{
char Char[9];
} TimeStamp;
TimeStamp GetTimeStamp()
{
time_t CurrentCalendarTime;
time(&CurrentCalendarTime);
struct tm* LocalTime = localtime(&CurrentCalendarTime);
TimeStamp Time = { 0 };
strftime(Time.Char, 9, "%H:%M:%S", LocalTime);
return Time;
}
This is a question for my Programming Langs Concepts/Implementation class. Given the following C code snippet:
void foo()
{
int i;
printf("%d ", i++);
}
void main()
{
int j;
for (j = 1; j <= 10; j++)
foo();
}
The local variable i in foo is never initialized but behaves similarly to a static variable on most systems. Meaning the program will print 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9. I understand why it does this (the memory location of i never changes) but the question in the homework asks to modify the code (without changing foo) to alter this behavior. I've come up with a solution that works and makes the program print ten 0's but I don't know if it's the "right" solution and to be honest I don't exactly know why it works.
Here is my solution:
void main()
{
int j;
void* some_ptr = NULL;
for (j = 1; j <= 10; j++)
{
some_ptr = malloc(sizeof(void*));
foo();
free(some_ptr);
}
}
My original thought process was that i wasn't changing locations because there was no other memory manipulation happening around the calls of foo, so allocating a variable should disrupt that, but ince some_ptr is allocated in the heap and i is on the stack, shouldn't the allocation of some_ptr have no effect on i? My thought is that the compiler is playing some games with the optimization of that subroutine call, could anyone clarify?
There cannot be a "right" solution. But there can be a class of solutions which work for a particular CPU architecture, ABI, compiler, and compiler options.
Changing the code to something like this will have the effect of altering the memory above the stack in a way which should affect many, if not most, environments in the targeted way.
void foo()
{
int i;
printf("%d ", i++);
}
void main()
{
int j;
int a [2];
for (j = 1; j <= 10; j++)
{
foo();
a [-5] = j * 100;
}
}
Output (gcc x64 on Linux):
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
a[-5] is the number of words of stack used for overhead and variables spanning the two functions. There is the return address, saved stack link value, etc. The stack likely looks like this when foo() writes to a[-5]:
i
saved stack link
return address
main's j
(must be something else)
main's a[]
I guessed -5 on the second try. -4 was my first guess.
When you call foo() from main(), the (uninitialized) variable i is allocated at a memory address. In the original code, it so happens that it is zero (on your machine, with your compiler, and your chosen compilation options, your environment settings, and given the current phase of the moon — it might change when any of these, or a myriad other factors, changes).
By calling another function before calling foo(), you allow the other function to overwrite the memory location that foo() will use for i with a different value. It isn't guaranteed to change; you could, by bad luck, replace the zero with another zero.
You could perhaps use another function:
static void bar(void)
{
int j;
for (j = 10; j < 20; j++)
printf("%d\n", j);
}
and calling that before calling foo() will change the value in i. Calling malloc() changes things too. Calling pretty much any function will probably change it.
However, it must be (re)emphasized that the original code is laden with undefined behaviour, and calling other functions doesn't make it any less undefined. Anything can happen and it is valid.
The variable i in foo is simply uninitialized, and uninitialized value have indeterminate value upon entering the block. The way you saw it print certain value is entirely by coincident, and to write standard conforming C, you should never rely on such behavior. You should always initialize automatic variables before using it.
From c11std 6.2.4p6:
For such an object that does not have a variable length array type, its lifetime extends from entry into the block with which it is associated until execution of that block ends in any way. (Entering an enclosed block or calling a function suspends, but does not end, execution of the current block.) If the block is entered recursively, a new instance of the object is created each time. The initial value of the object is indeterminate. If an initialization is specified for the object, it is performed each time the declaration or compound literal is reached in the execution of the block; otherwise, the value becomes indeterminate each time the declaration is reached.
The reason the uninitialized value seems to keep its value from past calls is that it is on the stack and the stack pointer happens to have the same value every time the function is called.
The reason your code might be changing the value is that you started calling other functions: malloc and free. Their internal stack variables are using the same location as i in foo().
As for optimization, small programs like this are in danger of disappearing entirely. GCC or Clang might decide that since using an uninitialized variable is undefined behavior, the compiler is within its rights to completely remove the code. Or it might put i in a register set to zero. Then decide all printf calls output zero. Then decide that your entire program is simply a single puts("0000000000") call.
This question already has answers here:
Why does gcc throw a warning when returning a pointer to a local variable and not when returning a local variable?
(4 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
Here is my code:
#include <stdio.h>
//returning a pointer
int *fun()
{
int i = 10;
//printf ("%u\n",i);
//printf ("%u\n",&i);
return &i;
}
int main()
{
int *p;
p = fun();
printf ("p = %u\n", p);
printf ("i = %u \n",*p);
return 0;
}
If I remove the comments in the function fun, then the second printf in main shows 10 as the output. otherwise it shows a garbage value. any idea?
Without the commented lines i is never used. So depending on your optimizer, i may never even be allocated. When you add printf within the function, the variable is now used so the compiler allocates memory for i on the stack frame (which happens to have not been reclaimed at the point your second set of printfs occurs). Of course, you cannot depend on when that memory will be reclaimed- but the next function call that occurs is very likely to overwrite the fun() stack frame.
If you set your compiler to disable code optimization you may have a different result. Or you can try setting the variable to volatile which tells the compiler that it doesn't know about all uses of the variable and so allocate it even if the optimizer says it's not needed (which won't stop your variable's memory from being deallocated after you leave the function, it'll just force the allocation in the first place).
As a side note this issue can come up in embedded systems where you have a pointer to a hardware register that triggers hardware actions when set (for instance you might have hardware registers that control a robots arm motion). If you don't declare the pointer to that register volatile then the compiler may optimize away your assignment thinking it's never used.
When fun returns, i goes out of scope so that the address you've returned now points to something else. Try to malloc() some memory and return that instead. And don't forget to call free() when you're done with it :)
And also the second printf in main shows 10 is a pure luck because you have not yet used that space/address for something else.
As #clcto mentions in the first comment the variable i is local to function and it get de-allocated when function returns.
Now why uncommenting the two print statements in function fun() make the value of p to be 10?
It can be because of many reasons which may be dependent on internal behavior of C and your system. But my guess is that it is happening because of how print works.
It maintains a buffer that I know. It fills it and then print it to the console when it get filled completely. So the first two print calls in fun() push i to the buffer, which is not yet filled completely. So when you are returning from fun() it may be possible that i doesn't get de-allocated because buffer is using it (or may be any other reason which I am not sure of but due to buffer i is preserved.)
To support my guess I tried to flush the buffer before printing again and now it doesn't prints 10. You can see the output here and the modified code is below:
#include <stdio.h>
//returning a pointer
int *fun()
{
int i = 10;
printf ("%u\n",i);
printf ("%u\n",&i);
return &i;
}
int main()
{
int *p;
p = fun();
fflush(stdout);
printf ("p = %u\n", p);
printf ("i = %u \n",*p);
return 0;
}
I think my guess is wrong, as #KayakDave pinted out. It just get fit to the situation completely. Kindly refere to his answer for correct explanation.
Here is my code
#include<stdio.h>
int * fun(int a1,int b)
{
int a[2];
a[0]=a1;
a[1]=b;
//int c=5;
printf("%x\n",&a[0]);
return a;
}
int main()
{
int *r=fun(3,5);
printf("%d\n",r[0]);
printf("%d\n",r[0]);
}
I am running codeblocks on Windows 7
Every time I run the loop I get the outputs as
22fee8
3
2293700
Here is the part I do not understand :
r expects a pointer to a part of memory which is interpreted as a sequence of boxes (each box of 4 byte width - >Integers ) on invoking fun function
What should happen is printf of function will print the address of a or address of a[0]:
Seconded
NOW THE QUESTION IS :
each time I run the program I get the same address?
And the array a should be destroyed at the end of Function fun only pointer must remain after function call
Then why on earth does the line r[0] must print 3?
r is pointing to something that doesn't exist anymore. You are returning a pointer to something on the stack. That stack will rewind when fun() ends. It can point to anything after that but nothing has overwritten it because another function is never called.
Nothing forces r[0] to be 3 - it's just a result of going for the simplest acceptable behaviour.
Basically, you're right that a must be destroyed at the end of fun. All this means is that the returned pointer (r in your case) is completely unreliable. That is, even though r[0] == 3 for you on your particular machine with your particular compiler, there's no guarantee that this will always hold on every machine.
To understand why it is so consistent for you, think about this: what does is mean for a to be destroyed? Only that you can't use it in any reliable way. The simplest way of satisfying this simple requirement is for the stack pointer to move back to the point where fun was called. So when you use r[0], the values of a are still present, but they are junk data - you can't count on them existing.
This is what happens:
int a[2]; is allocated on the stack (or similar). Suppose it gets allocated at the stack at address 0x12345678.
Various data gets pushed on the stack at this address, as the array is filled. Everything works as expected.
The address 0x12345678 pointing at the stack gets returned. (Ironically, the address itself likely gets returned on the stack.)
The memory allocated on the stack for a ceases to be valid. For now the two int values still sit at the given address in RAM, containing the values assigned to them. But the stack pointer isn't reserving those cells, nor is anything else in the program keeping track of that data. Computers don't delete data by erasing the value etc, they delete cells by forgetting that anything of use is stored at that memory location.
When the function ends, those memory cells are free to be used for the rest of the program. For example, a value returned by the function might end up there instead.
The function returned a pointer to a segment on the stack where there used to be valid data. The pointer is still 0x12345678 but at that address, anything might be stored by now. Furthermore, the contents at that address may change as different items are pushed/popped from the stack.
Printing the contents of that address will therefore give random results. Or it could print the same garbage value each time the program is executed. In fact it isn't guaranteed to print anything at all: printing the contents of an invalid memory cell is undefined behavior in C. The program could even crash when you attempt it.
r is undefined after the stack of the function int * fun(int a1,int b) is released, right after it ends, so it can be 3 or 42 or whatever value. The fact that it still contains your expected value is because it haven't been used for anything else, as a chunk of your memory is reserved for your program and your program does not use the stack further. Then after the first 3 is printed you get another value, that means that stack was used for something else, you could blame printf() since it's the only thing runing and it does a LOT of things to get that numbers into the console.
Why does it always print the same results? Because you always do the same process, there's no magic in it. But there's no guarantee that it'll be 3 since that 'memory space' is not yours and you are only 'peeking' into it.
Also, check the optimization level of your compiler fun() and main(), being as simple as they are, could be inline'd or replaced if the binary is to be optimized reducing the 'randomness' expected in your results. Although I wouldn't expect it to change much either.
You can find pretty good answers here:
can-a-local-variables-memory-be-accessed-outside-its-scope
returning-the-address-of-local-or-temporary-variable
return-reference-to-local-variable
Though the examples are for C++, underlying idea is same.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Returning the address of local or temporary variable
The add function is implemented wrongly. It should return a value instead of a pointer.
Why aren't any errors when ans and *ans_ptr are printed and the program even gives correct result? I guess the variable of z is already out of scope and there should be segmentation fault.
#include <stdio.h>
int * add(int x, int y) {
int z = x + y;
int *ans_ptr = &z;
return ans_ptr;
}
int main() {
int ans = *(add(1, 2));
int *ans_ptr = add(1, 2);
printf("%d\n", *ans_ptr);
printf("%d\n", ans);
return 0;
}
The reason it 'works' is because you got lucky. Returning a pointer to a local variable is Undefined Behaviour!! You should NOT do it.
int * add(int x, int y) {
int z = x + y; //z is a local variable in this stack frame
int *ans_ptr = &z; // ans_ptr points to z
return ans_ptr;
}
// at return of function, z is destroyed, so what does ans_ptr point to? No one knows. UB results
Because C has no garbage collection, when the "z" variable goes out of scope, nothing happens to the actual memory. It is simply freed for another variable to overwrite if the compiler pleases.
Since no memory is allocated between calling "add" and printing, the value is still sitting in memory, and you can access it because you have its address. You "got lucky."
However, as Tony points out, you should NEVER do this. It will work some of the time, but as soon as your program gets more complex, you will start ending up with spurious values.
No. Your question displays a fundamental lack of understanding of how the C memory model works.
The value z is allocated at an address on the stack, in the frame which is created when control enters add(). ans_ptr is then set to this memory address and returned.
The space on the stack will be overwritten by the next function that is called, but remember that C never performs memory clean up unless explicitly told to (eg via a function like calloc()).
This means that the value in the memory location &z (from the just-vacated stack frame) is still intact in the immediately following statement, ie. the printf() statement in main().
You should never ever rely on this behaviour - as soon as you add additional code into the above it will likely break.
The answer is: this program works because you are fortunate, but it will take no time to betray, as the address you return is not reserved to you anymore and any one can use it again. Its like renting the room, making a duplicate key, releasing the room, and after you have released the room at some later time you try to enter it with a duplicate key. In this case if the room is empty and not rented to someone else then you are fortunate, otherwise it can land you in police custody (something bad), and if the lock of the room was changed you get a segfault, so you can't just trust on the duplicate key which you made without acquisition of the room.
The z is a local variable allocated in stack and its scope is as long as the particular call to the function block. You return the address of such a local variable. Once you return from the function, all the addresses local to the block (allocated in the function call stack frame) might be used for another call and be overwritten, therefore you might or might not get what you expect. Which is undefined behavior, and thus such operation is incorrect.
If you are getting correct output, then you are fortunate that the old value held by that memory location is not overwritten, but your program has access to the page in which the address lies, therefore you do not get a segmentation fault error.
A quick test shows, as the OP points out, that neither GCC 4.3 nor MSVC 10 provide any warnings. But the Clang Static Analyzer does:
ccc-analyzer -c foo.c
...
ANALYZE: foo.c add
foo.c:6:5: warning: Address of stack memory associated with local
variable 'z' returned to caller
return ans_ptr;
^ ~~~~~~~