For each of the following, where does it appear to be stored in memory, and in what order: global variables, local variables, static local variables, function parameters, global constants, local constants, the functions themselves (and is main a special case?), dynamically allocated variables.
How will I evaluate this experimentally,i.e., using C code?
I know that
global variables -- data
static variables -- data
constant data types -- code
local variables(declared and defined in functions) -- stack
variables declared and defined in main function -- stack
pointers(ex: char *arr,int *arr) -- data or stack
dynamically allocated space(using malloc,calloc) -- heap
You could write some code to create all of the above, and then print out their addresses. For example:
void func(int a) {
int i = 0;
printf("local i address is %x\n", &i);
printf("parameter a address is %x\n", &a);
}
printf("func address is %x\n", (void *) &func);
note the function address is a bit tricky, you have to cast it a void* and when you take the address of a function you omit the (). Compare memory addresses and you will start to get a picture or where things are. Normally text (instructions) are at the bottom (closest to 0x0000) the heap is in the middle, and the stack starts at the top and grows down.
In theory
Pointers are no different from other variables as far as memory location is concerned.
Local variables and parameters might be allocated on the stack or directly in registers.
constant strings will be stored in a special data section, but basically the same kind of location as data.
numerical constants themselves will not be stored anywhere, they will be put into other variables or translated directly into CPU instructions.
for instance int a = 5; will store the constant 5 into the variable a (the actual memory is tied to the variable, not the constant), but a *= 5 will generate the code necessary to multiply a by the constant 5.
main is just a function like any other as far as memory location is concerned. A local main variable is no different from any other local variable, main code is located somewhere in code section like any other function, argc and argv are just parameters like any others (they are provided by the startup code that calls the main), etc.
code generation
Now if you want to see where the compiler and runtime put all these things, a possibility is to write a small program that defines a few of each, and ask the compiler to produce an assembly listing. You will then see how each element is stored.
For heap data, you will see calls to malloc, which is responsible for interfacing with the dynamic memory allocator.
For stack data, you will see strange references to stack pointers (the ebp register on x86 architectures), that will both be used for parameters and (automatic) local variables.
For global/static data, you will see labels named after your variables.
Constant strings will probably be labelled with an awful name, but you will notice they all go into a section (usually named bss) that will be linked next to data.
runtime addresses
Alternatively, you can run this program and ask it to print the addresses of each element. This, however, will not show you the register usage.
If you use a variable address, you will force the compiler to put it into memory, while it could have kept it into a register otherwise.
Note also that the memory organization is compiler and system dependent. The same code compiled with gcc and MSVC may have completely different addresses and elements in a completely different order.
Code optimizer is likely to do strange things too, so I advise to compile your sample code with all optimizations disabled first.
Looking at what the compiler does to gain size and/or speed might be interesting though.
Related
In other words, will compilers allocate enough space in the program stack to store all variables at the deepest level of block nesting in the current function or do they look at liveness and the scope of variables too?
void zoo(int num) {
if (num) {
int a = foo();
bar(a);
} else {
int b = foo();
bar(b);
}
}
For example the above code will be assigned different offsets on the stack for a and b, even though, if they were assigned only one offset (e.g. rbp - 8) it would have been legal too. My question is that will compilers like gcc and clang ever output assembly where multiple variables are assigned the same static offset?
Is there anything in the specifications about this?
I want to know if there is a unique mapping between source variables and the stack offsets present in a compiled assembly file.
There is, in general, no unique mapping between objects with automatic storage duration (“local” objects defined inside a function or block) and stack offsets. I have seen compiler-generated code reuse the same stack location for different objects, either because the use of one did not overlap the use of the other in the C code or because the compiler had moved one into a register for whatever purposes and no longer needed to use the stack location for it.
The C and C++ standards do not require implementations to implement their stack allocation in any particular way. They are free to reuse stack locations. They are also free to allocate all the stack space that might be needed1 or to wait to see if particular blocks are entered or not before further allocating stack space for the objects inside those blocks.
Note
1 Implementations that support variable-length arrays generally must wait until the size of the array can be determined before allocating space for it.
Think of the situation as follow.
int main(void)
{
...
int a=10; //a get into the stack.
int b=20; //b get into the stack.
int c=30; //c get into the stack.
...
}
As we know, the “stack segment” is satisfied with the storage approach of "stack data structure"; and here, the local variables a, b, and c are exactly stored in such a direction of memory, so in theory we can only access to the element at the top of the stack.
But what if we do something like this?
printf("b = %d",b);
Local variable b is in the middle of a and c, but we can get it.
So...can we say that we can directly get the element in the middle of the stack?
Here is the image of " a, b, and c stored in stack "
the local variables a, b, and c are exactly stored in such a direction of memory
I don't know from where you got this but this is not true, at least in modern compilers.
First of all, C itself doesn't specify anything about using a stack. How the function calls are implemented is implementation defined. Lots of common implementations use stack like data structure to implement function call in the sense that last called function will be returned first.
But this doesn't mean that the local variables are stored in stack like structure. There are lots of options to the compiler like:
It can eliminate the variable completely if that is not needed in run-time.
It can place the variables in register.
It can re-order variables.
In all of these cases the only thing that compiler guarantees that the observable behavior of the code is not changed.
Since it doesn't store variables in stack like data structure, it has no problem to access them in middle.
First of all C standard never utter stack` anywhere. Now moving from standard - implementors may implement such a way that local variables are stored in stack memory as part of function frame.
Now you are thinking - stack is always accessed on top but here we can access the variable b directly. Though it is in the middle somewhere. Nope you are wrong - the thing is the frame of the functions are which are stored in stack and popped off when done(though an implementation can do it other way also - but speaking in general). It is not the variables that are the unit of operations here.
By accessing b we are not violating any rule of stack data structure. The function frames are the ones which are accessed in LIFO manner not the variables inside those frames.
Also it's a bit out of context now a days to segregate like that. We can simply say that they have automatic storage duration. And that's it. They can be implemented in group of registers also(standard won't stop them). The function frames are the one which will likely to be have that stack data-structures behavior.
Usage of the stack to store automatic variables is only an implementation detail, nothing is required by the standard. But at a lower level it is indeed the most common implementation. It is because in processors, a special register (stack pointer) is used to store return addresses in function calls (instructions call and return). When automatic variables are also stored in that stack, it is trivial to reclaim there storage back at return time or at end of the block. But they are not individually pushed onto a stack: a frame pointer is used to store the memory zone for the current block (including a reference for upper frames) and the stack pointer is increased in one single operation for the size of the frame containing all the local variables. Then those variables are known by the offset to the current frame pointer. So they are known by their own address and not as elements of a stack.
Take a simple program like this:
int main(void)
{
char p;
char *q;
q = &p;
return 0;
}
How is &p determined? Does the compiler calculate all such references before-hand or is it done at runtime? If at runtime, is there some table of variables or something where it looks these things up? Does the OS keep track of them and it just asks the OS?
My question may not even make sense in the context of the correct explanation, so feel free to set me straight.
How is &p determined? Does the compiler calculate all such references before-hand or is it done at runtime?
This is an implementation detail of the compiler. Different compilers can choose different techniques depending on the kind of operating system they are generating code for and the whims of the compiler writer.
Let me describe for you how this is typically done on a modern operating system like Windows.
When the process starts up, the operating system gives the process a virtual address space, of, let's say 2GB. Of that 2GB, a 1MB section of it is set aside as "the stack" for the main thread. The stack is a region of memory where everything "below" the current stack pointer is "in use", and everything in that 1MB section "above" it is "free". How the operating system chooses which 1MB chunk of virtual address space is the stack is an implementation detail of Windows.
(Aside: whether the free space is at the "top" or "bottom" of the stack, whether the "valid" space grows "up" or "down" is also an implementation detail. Different operating systems on different chips do it differently. Let's suppose the stack grows from high addresses to low addresses.)
The operating system ensures that when main is invoked, the register ESP contains the address of the dividing line between the valid and free portions of the stack.
(Aside: again, whether the ESP is the address of the first valid point or the first free point is an implementation detail.)
The compiler generates code for main that pushes the stack pointer by lets say five bytes, by subtracting from it if the stack is growing "down". It decreases by five because it needs one byte for p and four for q. So the stack pointer changes; there are now five more "valid" bytes and five fewer "free" bytes.
Let's say that q is the memory that is now in ESP through ESP+3 and p is the memory now in ESP+4. To assign the address of p to q, the compiler generates code that copies the four byte value ESP+4 into the locations ESP through ESP+3.
(Aside: Note that it is highly likely that the compiler lays out the stack so that everything that has its address taken is on an ESP+offset value that is divisible by four. Some chips have requirements that addresses be divisible by pointer size. Again, this is an implementation detail.)
If you do not understand the difference between an address used as a value and an address used as a storage location, figure that out. Without understanding that key difference you will not be successful in C.
That's one way it could work but like I said, different compilers can choose to do it differently as they see fit.
The compiler cannot know the full address of p at compile-time because a function can be called multiple times by different callers, and p can have different values.
Of course, the compiler has to know how to calculate the address of p at run-time, not only for the address-of operator, but simply in order to generate code that works with the p variable. On a regular architecture, local variables like p are allocated on the stack, i.e. in a position with fixed offset relative to the address of the current stack frame.
Thus, the line q = &p simply stores into q (another local variable allocated on the stack) the address p has in the current stack frame.
Note that in general, what the compiler does or doesn't know is implementation-dependent. For example, an optimizing compiler might very well optimize away your entire main after analyzing that its actions have no observable effect. The above is written under the assumption of a mainstream architecture and compiler, and a non-static function (other than main) that may be invoked by multiple callers.
This is actually an extraordinarily difficult question to answer in full generality because it's massively complicated by virtual memory, address space layout randomization and relocation.
The short answer is that the compiler basically deals in terms of offsets from some “base”, which is decided by the runtime loader when you execute your program. Your variables, p and q, will appear very close to the “bottom” of the stack (although the stack base is usually very high in VM and it grows “down”).
Address of a local variable cannot be completely calculated at compile time. Local variables are typically allocated in the stack. When called, each function allocates a stack frame - a single continuous block of memory in which it stores all its local variables. The physical location of the stack frame in memory cannot be predicted at compile time. It will only become known at run-time. The beginning of each stack frame is typically stored at run-time in a dedicated processor register, like ebp on Intel platform.
Meanwhile, the internal memory layout of a stack frame is pre-determined by the compiler at compile-time, i.e. it is the compiler who decides how local variables will be laid out inside the stack frame. This means that the compiler knows the local offset of each local variable inside the stack frame.
Put this all together and we get that the exact absolute address of a local variable is the sum of the address of the stack frame itself (the run-time component) and the offset of this variable inside that frame (the compile-time component).
This is basically exactly what the compiled code for
q = &p;
will do. It will take the current value of the stack frame register, add some compile-time constant to it (offset of p) and store the result in q.
In any function, the function arguments and the local variables are allocated on the stack, after the position (program counter) of the last function at the point where it calls the current function. How these variables get allocated on the stack and then deallocated when returning from the function, is taken care of by the compiler during compile time.
For e.g. for this case, p (1 byte) could be allocated first on the stack followed by q (4 bytes for 32-bit architecture). The code assigns the address of p to q. The address of p naturally then is 5 added or subtracted from the the last value of the stack pointer. Well, something like that, depends on how the value of the stack pointer is updated and whether the stack grows upwards or downwards.
How the return value is passed back to the calling function is something that I'm not certain of, but I'm guessing that it is passed through the registers and not the stack. So, when the return is called, the underlying assembly code should deallocate p and q, place zero into the register, then return to the last position of the caller function. Of course, in this case, it is the main function, so it is more complicated in that, it causes the OS to terminate the process. But in other cases, it just goes back to the calling function.
In ANSI C, all the local variables should be placed at the top of the function and is allocated once into the stack when entering the function and deallocated when returning from the function. In C++ or later versions of C, this becomes more complicated when local variables can also be declared inside blocks (like if-else or while statement blocks). In this case, the local variable is allocated onto the stack when entering the block and deallocated when leaving the block.
In all cases, the address of a local variable is always a fixed number added or subtracted from the stack pointer (as calculated by the compiler, relative to the containing block) and the size of the variable is determined from the variable type.
However, static local variables and global variables are different in C. These are allocated in fixed locations in the memory, and thus there's a fixed address for them (or a fixed offset relative to the process' boundary), which is calculated by the linker.
Yet a third variety is memory allocated on the heap using malloc/new and free/delete. I think this discussion would be too lengthy if we include that as well.
That said, my description is only for a typical hardware architecture and OS. All of these are also dependent on a wide variety of things, as mentioned by Emmet.
p is a variable with automatic storage. It lives only as long as the function it is in lives. Every time its function is called memory for it is taken from the stack, therefore, its address can change and is not known until runtime.
The background of this question is to understand how the compiler/linker deals with the pointers when it is initialized in global space.
For e.g.
#include <stdio.h>
int a = 8;
int *p = &a;
int main(void) {
printf("Address of 'a' = %x", p);
return 0;
}
Executing the above code prints the exact address for a.
My question here is, during at which process (compile? or linker?) the pointer p gets address of a ? It would be nice if your explanation includes equivalent Assembly code of the above program and how the compiler and linker deals with pointer assignment int *p = &a; in global space.
P.S: I could find lot of examples when the pointer is declared and initialized in local scope but hardly for global space.
Thanks in advance!
A module is linked (often named crt0.o) along with your program code, which is responsible for setting up the environment for a C program. There will be global and static variables initialized which is executed before main is called.
The actual address of the global variables are determined by the operating system, when it loads an executable and performs the necessary relocations so that the new process can be executed.
To run a program, the system has to load it into RAM. So it creates one huge memory block containing the actual compiled instructions. This block usually also contains a "data section" which contains strings etc. If you declare a global variable, what compilers usually do is reserve space for that variable in such a data section (there's usually several, non-writable ones for strings, and writable ones for globals etc.).
Whenever you reference the global, it just records the offset from the current instruction to that global. So an instruction can just calculate [current instruction address] + [offset] to get at the global, wherever it ended up being loaded. Since space in the data section has been reserved in the file anyway, they can write any (constant) value in there you want, and it will get loaded with the rest of the code.
This is how it works in C, and is why C only allows constants. C++ works like Devolus wrote, where there is extra code that is run before main(). Effectively they rename the main function and give you a function that does the setup, then calls your main function. This allows C++ to call constructors.
There are also some optimizations like, if a global is initialized to zero, it usually just gets an offset in a "zero" section that doesn't exist in the file. The file just says: "After this code, I want 64 bytes of zeroes". That way, your file doesn't waste space on disk with hundreds of "empty" bytes.
It gets a tad more complicated if you have dynamically loaded libraries (dylibs or DLLs), where you have two segments loaded into separate memory blocks. Since neither knows where in RAM the other one ended up, the executable file contains a list of name -> offset mappings. When you load a library, the loader looks up the symbol in the (already loaded) other library and calculates the actual address at which e.g. the global is at, before main() is called (and before any of the constructors run).
I wonder where constant variables are stored. Is it in the same memory area as global variables? Or is it on the stack?
How they are stored is an implementation detail (depends on the compiler).
For example, in the GCC compiler, on most machines, read-only variables, constants, and jump tables are placed in the text section.
Depending on the data segmentation that a particular processor follows, we have five segments:
Code Segment - Stores only code, ROM
BSS (or Block Started by Symbol) Data segment - Stores initialised global and static variables
Stack segment - stores all the local variables and other informations regarding function return address etc
Heap segment - all dynamic allocations happens here
Data BSS (or Block Started by Symbol) segment - stores uninitialised global and static variables
Note that the difference between the data and BSS segments is that the former stores initialized global and static variables and the later stores UNinitialised ones.
Now, Why am I talking about the data segmentation when I must be just telling where are the constant variables stored... there's a reason to it...
Every segment has a write protected region where all the constants are stored.
For example:
If I have a const int which is local variable, then it is stored in the write protected region of stack segment.
If I have a global that is initialised const var, then it is stored in the data segment.
If I have an uninitialised const var, then it is stored in the BSS segment...
To summarize, "const" is just a data QUALIFIER, which means that first the compiler has to decide which segment the variable has to be stored and then if the variable is a const, then it qualifies to be stored in the write protected region of that particular segment.
Consider the code:
const int i = 0;
static const int k = 99;
int function(void)
{
const int j = 37;
totherfunc(&j);
totherfunc(&i);
//totherfunc(&k);
return(j+3);
}
Generally, i can be stored in the text segment (it's a read-only variable with a fixed value). If it is not in the text segment, it will be stored beside the global variables. Given that it is initialized to zero, it might be in the 'bss' section (where zeroed variables are usually allocated) or in the 'data' section (where initialized variables are usually allocated).
If the compiler is convinced the k is unused (which it could be since it is local to a single file), it might not appear in the object code at all. If the call to totherfunc() that references k was not commented out, then k would have to be allocated an address somewhere - it would likely be in the same segment as i.
The constant (if it is a constant, is it still a variable?) j will most probably appear on the stack of a conventional C implementation. (If you were asking in the comp.std.c news group, someone would mention that the standard doesn't say that automatic variables appear on the stack; fortunately, SO isn't comp.std.c!)
Note that I forced the variables to appear because I passed them by reference - presumably to a function expecting a pointer to a constant integer. If the addresses were never taken, then j and k could be optimized out of the code altogether. To remove i, the compiler would have to know all the source code for the entire program - it is accessible in other translation units (source files), and so cannot as readily be removed. Doubly not if the program indulges in dynamic loading of shared libraries - one of those libraries might rely on that global variable.
(Stylistically - the variables i and j should have longer, more meaningful names; this is only an example!)
Depends on your compiler, your system capabilities, your configuration while compiling.
gcc puts read-only constants on the .text section, unless instructed otherwise.
Usually they are stored in read-only data section (while global variables' section has write permissions). So, trying to modify constant by taking its address may result in access violation aka segfault.
But it depends on your hardware, OS and compiler really.
offcourse not , because
1) bss segment stored non inilized variables it obviously another type is there.
(I) large static and global and non constants and non initilaized variables it stored .BSS section.
(II) second thing small static and global variables and non constants and non initilaized variables stored in .SBSS section this included in .BSS segment.
2) data segment is initlaized variables it has 3 types ,
(I) large static and global and initlaized and non constants variables its stord in .DATA section.
(II) small static and global and non constant and initilaized variables its stord in .SDATA1 sectiion.
(III) small static and global and constant and initilaized OR non initilaized variables its stord in .SDATA2 sectiion.
i mention above small and large means depents upon complier for example small means < than 8 bytes and large means > than 8 bytes and equal values.
but my doubt is local constant are where it will stroe??????
This is mostly an educated guess, but I'd say that constants are usually stored in the actual CPU instructions of your compiled program, as immediate data. So in other words, most instructions include space for the address to get data from, but if it's a constant, the space can hold the value itself.
This is specific to Win32 systems.
It's compiler dependence but please aware that it may not be even fully stored. Since the compiler just needs to optimize it and adds the value of it directly into the expression that uses it.
I add this code in a program and compile with gcc for arm cortex m4, check the difference in the memory usage.
Without const:
int someConst[1000] = {0};
With const:
const int someConst[1000] = {0};
Global and constant are two completely separated keywords. You can have one or the other, none or both.
Where your variable, then, is stored in memory depends on the configuration. Read up a bit on the heap and the stack, that will give you some knowledge to ask more (and if I may, better and more specific) questions.
It may not be stored at all.
Consider some code like this:
#import<math.h>//import PI
double toRadian(int degree){
return degree*PI*2/360.0;
}
This enables the programmer to gather the idea of what is going on, but the compiler can optimize away some of that, and most compilers do, by evaluating constant expressions at compile time, which means that the value PI may not be in the resulting program at all.
Just as an an add on ,as you know that its during linking process the memory lay out of the final executable is decided .There is one more section called COMMON at which the common symbols from different input files are placed.This common section actually falls under the .bss section.
Some constants aren't even stored.
Consider the following code:
int x = foo();
x *= 2;
Chances are that the compiler will turn the multiplication into x = x+x; as that reduces the need to load the number 2 from memory.
I checked on x86_64 GNU/Linux system. By dereferencing the pointer to 'const' variable, the value can be changed. I used objdump. Didn't find 'const' variable in text segment. 'const' variable is stored on stack.
'const' is a compiler directive in "C". The compiler throws error when it comes across a statement changing 'const' variable.