In C there are 2 ways to create arrays:
int array[100];
and
int * array = malloc(sizeof(int)*100);
With the second statement its easy to check if there was enough memory available to create the array for example:
if(array == NULL){
goto OutOfMemory;
}
But how would you check that the first worked successfully? Assuming this was running on a microcontroller and not a computer.
There is no such thing as a recoverable failure from allocation of an array on the stack (the first way). It will only fail if allocating it causes a stack overflow, at which point your program has aborted/terminated anyway.
When you allocate the array the first way, it is being allocated on the stack, usually at function call time. If there isn't enough room on the stack to allocate it, the program aborts with a stack overflow/segfault error.
When you allocate the second way, you are asking the memory manager for memory on the heap at the time you actually call malloc.
EDIT: As mentioned by #Deduplicator, if you're on a system without memory protection, not having enough free stack space to allocate an array can leave to overruns and much subtler problems (although most likely it will fail on an illegal instruction soon enough).
The first piece of code stores the array in the stack
The second stores the array in the heap
Stack memory is pre-allocated thorughout the thread, having said that, unless u'r allocating huge amounts of data on the stack, you shouldn't be generally worried about stack space.
Checking available stack size in C
Edit:
In that case you ought to make sure, in-advance that you have enough stack (defined in your IDE/Compiler/Linker/Proprietary software) for the depthest of the calls throughout your code execution. This can be known in advance in compile-time, no need for runtime checks.
Related
I am trying to undestand the C functions malloc and free. I know this has been discussed a lot on StackOverflow. However, I think I kind of know what these functions do by now. I want to know why to use them. Let's take a look at this piece of code:
int n = 10;
char* array;
array = (char*) malloc(n * sizeof(char));
// Check whether memory could be allocated or not...
// Do whatever with array...
free(array);
array = NULL;
I created a pointer of type char which I called array. Then I used malloc to find a chunk of memory that is currently not used and (10 * sizeof(char)) bytes large. That address I casted to type char pointer before assigning it to my previously created char pointer. Now I can work with my char array. When I am done, I'll use free to free that chunk of memory since it's not being used anymore.
I have one question: Why wouldn't I just do char array[10];? Wikipedia has only one small sentence to give to answer that, and that sentence I unfortunately don't understand:
However, the size of the array is fixed at compile time. If one wishes to allocate a similar array dynamically...
The slide from my university is similarily concise:
It is also possible to allocate memory from the heap.
What is the heap? I know a data structure called heap. :)
However, I've someone could explain to me in which case it makes sense to use malloc and free instead of the regular declaration of a variable, that'd be great. :)
C provides three different possible "storage durations" for objects:
Automatic - local storage that's specific to the invocation of the function it's in. There may be more than one instance of objects created with automatic storage, if a function is called recursively or from multiple threads. Or there may be no instances (if/when the function isn't being called).
Static - storage that exists, in exactly one instance, for the entire duration of the running program.
Allocated (dynamic) - created by malloc, and persists until free is called to free it or the program terminates. Allocated storage is the only type of storage with which you can create arbitrarily large or arbitrarily many objects which you can keep even when functions return. This is what malloc is useful for.
First of all there is no need to cast the malloc
array = malloc(n * sizeof(char));
I have one question: Why wouldn't I just do char array[10];?
What will you do if you don't know how many storage space do you want (Say, if you wanted to have an array of arbitrary size like a stack or linked list for example)?
In this case you have to rely on malloc (in C99 you can use Variable Length Arrays but for small memory size).
The function malloc is used to allocate a certain amount of memory during the execution of a program. The malloc function will request a block of memory from the heap. If the request is granted, the operating system will reserve the requested amount of memory.
When the amount of memory is not needed anymore, you must return it to the operating system by calling the function free.
In simple: you use an array when you know the number of elements the array will need to hold at compile time. you use malloc with pointers when you don't know how many elements the array will need to be at compile time.
For more detail read Heap Management With malloc() and free().
Imagine you want to allocate 1,000 arrays.
If you did not have malloc and free... but needed a declaration in your source for each array, then you'd have to make 1,000 declarations. You'd have to give them all names. (array1, array2, ... array1000).
The idea in general of dynamic memory management is to handle items when the quantity of items is not something you can know in advance at the time you are writing your program.
Regarding your question: Why wouldn't I just do char array[10];?. You can, and most of the time, that will be completely sufficient. However, what if you wanted to do something similar, but much much bigger? Or what if the size of your data needs to change during execution? These are a few of the situations that point to using dynamically allocated memory (calloc() or malloc()).
Understanding a little about how/when the stack and heap are used would be good: When you use malloc() or calloc(), it uses memory from the heap, where automatic/static variables are given memory on the stack, and are freed when you leave the scope of that variable, i.e the function or block it was declared in.
Using malloc and calloc become very useful when the size of the data you need is not known until run-time. When the size is determined, you can easily call one of these to allocate memory onto the heap, then when you are finished, free it with free()
Regarding What is the heap? There is a good discussion on that topic here (slightly different topic, but good discussion)
In response to However, I've someone could explain to me in which case it makes sense to use malloc() and free()...?
In short, If you know what your memory requirements are at build time (before run-time) for a particular variable(s), use static / automatic creation of variables (and corresponding memory usage). If you do not know what size is necessary until run-time, use malloc() or calloc() with a corresponding call to free() (for each use) to create memory. This is of course a rule-of-thumb, and a gross generalization. As you gain experience using memory, you will find scenarios where even when size information is known before run-time, you will choose to dynamically allocate due to some other criteria. (size comes to mind)
If you know in advance that you only require an array of 10 chars, you should just say char array[10]. malloc is useful if you don't know in advance how much storage you need. It is also useful if you need storage that is valid after the current function returns. If you declare array as char array[10], it will be allocated on the stack. This data will not be valid after your function returns. Storage that you obtain from malloc is valid until you call free on it.
Also, there is no need to cast the return value of malloc.
Why to use free after malloc can be understood in the way that it is a good style to free memory as soon as you don't need it. However if you dont free the memory then it would not harm much but only your run time cost will increase.
You may also choose to leave memory unfreed when you exit the program. malloc() uses the heap and the complete heap of a process is freed when the process exits. The only reason why people insist on freeing the memory is to avoid memory leaks.
From here:
Allocation Myth 4: Non-garbage-collected programs should always
deallocate all memory they allocate.
The Truth: Omitted deallocations in frequently executed code cause
growing leaks. They are rarely acceptable. but Programs that retain
most allocated memory until program exit often perform better without
any intervening deallocation. Malloc is much easier to implement if
there is no free.
In most cases, deallocating memory just before program exit is
pointless. The OS will reclaim it anyway. Free will touch and page in
the dead objects; the OS won't.
Consequence: Be careful with "leak detectors" that count allocations.
Some "leaks" are good!
Also the wiki has a good point in Heap base memory allocation:-
The heap method suffers from a few inherent flaws, stemming entirely
from fragmentation. Like any method of memory allocation, the heap
will become fragmented; that is, there will be sections of used and
unused memory in the allocated space on the heap. A good allocator
will attempt to find an unused area of already allocated memory to use
before resorting to expanding the heap. The major problem with this
method is that the heap has only two significant attributes: base, or
the beginning of the heap in virtual memory space; and length, or its
size. The heap requires enough system memory to fill its entire
length, and its base can never change. Thus, any large areas of unused
memory are wasted. The heap can get "stuck" in this position if a
small used segment exists at the end of the heap, which could waste
any magnitude of address space, from a few megabytes to a few hundred.
I'm new to C. Sorry if this has already been answered, I could'n find a straight answer, so here we go..
I'm trying to understand how malloc() works in C. I have this code:
#define MAXLINE 100
void readInput(char **s)
{
char temp[MAXLINE];
printf("Please enter a string: ");
scanf("%s", temp);
*s = (char *)malloc((strlen(temp)+1)*sizeof(char)); // works as expected
//*s = (char *)malloc(2*sizeof(char)); // also works even when entering 10 chars, why?
strcpy ((char *)*s, temp);
}
int main()
{
char *str;
readInput(&str);
printf("Your string is %s\n", str);
free(str);
return 0;
}
The question is why doesn't the program crash (or at least strip the remaining characters) when I call malloc() like this:
*s = (char *)malloc(2*sizeof(char)); // also works even when entering 10 chars, why?
Won't this cause a buffer overflow if I enter a string with more than two characters? As I understood malloc(), it allocates a fixed space for data, so surely allocating the space for only two chars would allow the string to be maximum of one usable character ('0\' being the second), but it still is printing out all the 10 chars entered.
P.S. I'm using Xcode if that makes any difference.
Thanks,
Simon
It works out fine because you're lucky! Usually, a block a little larger than just 2 bytes is given to your program by your operating system.
If the OS actually gave you 16 bytes when you asked for 2 bytes, you could write 16 bytes without the OS taking notice of it. However if you had another malloc() in your program which used the other 14 bytes, you would write over that variables content.
The OS doesn't care about you messing about inside your own program. Your program will only crash if you write outside what the OS has given you.
Try to write 200 bytes and see if it crashes.
Edit:
malloc() and free() uses some of the heap space to maintain information about allocated memory. This information is usually stored in between the memory blocks. If you overflow a buffer, this information may get overwritten.
Yes writing more data into an allocated buffer is a buffer overflow. However there is no buffer overflow check in C and if there happens to be valid memory after your buffer than your code will appear to work correctly.
However what you have done is write into memory that you don't own and likely have corrupted the heap. Your next call to free or malloc will likely crash, or if not the next call, some later call could crash, or you could get lucky and malloc handed you a larger buffer than you requested, in which case you'll never see an issue.
Won't this cause a buffer overflow if I enter a string with more than two characters?
Absolutely. However, C does no bounds checking at runtime; it assumes you knew what you were doing when you allocated the memory, and that you know how much is available. If you go over the end of the buffer, you will clobber whatever was there before.
Whether that causes your code to crash or not depends on what was there before and what you clobbered it with. Not all overflows will kill your program, and overflow in the heap may not cause any (obvious) problems at all.
This is because even if you did not allocate the memory, the memory exists.
You are accessing data that is not yours, and probably that with a good debugger, or static analyzer you would have seen the error.
Also if you have a variable that is just behind the block you allocated it will probably be overriden by what you enter.
Simply this is one of the case of undefined behavior. You are unlucky that you are getting the expected result.
It does cause a buffer overflow. But C doesn’t do anything to prevent a buffer overflow. Neither do most implementations of malloc.
In general, a crash from a buffer overflow only occurs when...
It overflows a page—the unit of memory that malloc actually gets from the operating system. Malloc will fulfill many individual allocation requests from the same page of memory.
The overflow corrupts the memory that follows the buffer. This doesn’t cause an immediate crash. It causes a crash later when other code runs that depends upon the contents of that memory.
(...but these things depend upon the specifics of the system involved.)
It is entirely possible, if you are lucky, that a buffer overflow will never cause a crash. Although it may create other, less noticeable problems.
malloc() is the function call which is specified in Stdlib.h header file. If you are using arrays, you have to fix your memory length before utilize it. But in malloc() function, you can allocate the memory when you need and in required size. When you allocate the memory through malloc() it will search the memory modules and find the free block. even the memory blocks are in different places, it will assign a address and connect all the blocks.
when your process finish, you can free it. Free means, assigning a memory is in RAM only. once you process the function and make some data, you will shift the data to hard disk or any other permenant storage. afterwards, you can free the block so you can use for another data.
If you are going through pointer function, with out malloc() you can not make data blocks.
New() is the keyword for c++.
When you don't know when you are programming how big is the space of memory you will need, you can use the function malloc
void *malloc(size_t size);
The malloc() function shall allocate unused space for an object whose size in bytes is specified by size and whose value is unspecified.
how does it work is the question...
so
your system have the free chain list, that lists all the memory spaces available, the malloc search this list until it finds a space big enough as you required. Then it breaks this space in 2, sends you the space you required and put the other one back in the list. It breaks in pieces of size 2^n that way you wont have weird space sizes in your list, what makes it easy just like Lego.
when you call 'free' your block goes back to the free chain list.
I am not able to understand how variable size array works , whether memory for it is allocated on stack or somewhere else and how information about its size is obtained.
i tried the following code
#include<stdio.h>
int main()
{
int n;
scanf("%d",&n);
int arr[n];
printf("%d\n",sizeof(arr));
return 0;
}
i mean i memory is allocted on stack ,then before running this function the stack frame is to be allocated and memory for local variables has to be allocated ,but the size of array is known after the function calls scanf().
On most contemporary systems with memory protection and so on, you can just grow the stack. If accessing the grown stack causes accesses to memory which is actually outside the valid range of virtual memory for the process, the operating system will catch that and map some more memory your way.
So there's no problem in doing that "on the fly", and of course "allocating n bytes on the stack" is generally about as complex as "stackpointer -= n".
There might be some additional complexity if the function has many exit paths, since they need to unwind the proper amount of stack depending on wether the variable-length array has been allocated or not, not sure how that is generally solved. That would be an easy code-reading exercise to find out.
In C++, this isn't (yet) allowed, although some compilers allow it as a non-standard extension. Dynamically-sized arrays, similar to those in C, are due to be introduced in C++14.
How to implement this is up to the compiler writer, as long as the memory is allocated somewhere and freed automatically. This is typically done by extending the stack frame once the size is known. There may or may not be a check that the stack is large enough, so beware creating large arrays like this.
for example I can do
int *arr;
arr = (int *)malloc(sizeof(int) * 1048575);
but I cannot do this without the program crashing:
int arr[1048575];
why is this so?
Assuming arr is a local variable, declaring it as an array uses memory from the (relatively limited) stack, while malloc() uses memory from the (comparatively limitless) heap.
If you're allocating these as local variables in functions (which is the only place you could have the pointer declaration immediately followed by a malloc call), then the difference is that malloc will allocate a chunk of memory from the heap and give you its address, while directly doing int arr[1048575]; will attempt to allocate the memory on the stack. The stack has much less space available to it.
The stack is limited in size for two main reasons that I'm aware of:
Traditional imperative programming makes very little use of recursion, so deep recursion (and heavy stack growth) is "probably" a sign of infinite recursion, and hence a bug that's going to kill the process. It's therefore best if it is caught before the process consumes the gigabytes of virtual memory (on a 32 bit architecture) that will cause the process to exhaust its address space (at which point the machine is probably using far more virtual memory than it actually has RAM, and is therefore operating extremely slowly).
Multi-threaded programs need multiple stacks. Therefore, the runtime system needs know that the stack will never grow beyond a certain bound, so it can put another stack after that bound if a new thread is created.
When you declare an array, you are placing it on the stack.
When you call malloc(), the memory is taken from the heap.
The stack is usually more limited compared to the heap, and is usually transient (but it depends on how often you enter and exit the function that this array is declared in.
For such a large (maybe not by today's standards?) memory, it is good practice to malloc it, assuming you want the array to last around for a bit.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 13 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
When is it best to use a Stack instead of a Heap and vice versa?
I've read a few of the other questions regarding the heap vs stack, but they seem to focus more on what the heap/stack do rather than why you would use them.
It seems to me that stack allocation would almost always be preferred since it is quicker (just moving the stack pointer vs looking for free space in the heap), and you don't have to manually free allocated memory when you're done using it. The only reason I can see for using heap allocation is if you wanted to create an object in a function and then use it outside that functions scope, since stack allocated memory is automatically unallocated after returning from the function.
Are there other reasons for using heap allocation instead of stack allocation that I am not aware of?
There are a few reasons:
The main one is that with heap allocation, you have the most flexible control over the object's lifetime (from malloc/calloc to free);
Stack space is typically a more limited resource than heap space, at least in default configurations;
A failure to allocate heap space can be handled gracefully, whereas running out of stack space is often unrecoverable.
Without the flexible object lifetime, useful data structures such as binary trees and linked lists would be virtually impossible to write.
You want an allocation to live beyond a function invocation
You want to conserve stack space (which is typically limited to a few MBs)
You're working with re-locatable memory (Win16, databases, etc.), or want to recover from allocation failures.
Variable length anything. You can fake around this, but your code will be really nasty.
The big one is #1. As soon as you get into any sort of concurrency or IPC #1 is everywhere. Even most non-trivial single threaded applications are tricky to devise without some heap allocation. That'd practically be faking a functional language in C/C++.
So I want to make a string. I can make it on the heap or on the stack. Let's try both:
char *heap = malloc(14);
if(heap == NULL)
{
// bad things happened!
}
strcat(heap, "Hello, world!");
And for the stack:
char stack[] = "Hello, world!";
So now I have these two strings in their respective places. Later, I want to make them longer:
char *tmp = realloc(heap, 20);
if(tmp == NULL)
{
// bad things happened!
}
heap = tmp;
memmove(heap + 13, heap + 7);
memcpy(heap + 7, "cruel ", 6);
And for the stack:
// umm... What?
This is only one benefit, and others have mentioned other benefits, but this is a rather nice one. With the heap, we can at least try to make our allocated space larger. With the stack, we're stuck with what we have. If we want room to grow, we have to declare it all up front, and we all know how it stinks to see this:
char username[MAX_BUF_SIZE];
The most obvious rationale for using the heap is when you call a function and need something of unknown length returned. Sometimes the caller may pass a memory block and size to the function, but at other times this is just impractical, especially if the returned stuff is complex (e.g. a collection of different objects with pointers flying around, etc.).
Size limits are a huge dealbreaker in a lot of cases. The stack is usually measured in the low megabytes or even kilobytes (that's for everything on the stack), whereas all modern PCs allow you a few gigabytes of heap. So if you're going to be using a large amount of data, you absolutely need the heap.
just to add
you can use alloca to allocate memory on the stack, but again memory on the stack is limited and also the space exists only during the function execution only.
that does not mean everything should be allocated on the heap. like all design decisions this is also somewhat difficult, a "judicious" combination of both should be used.
Besides manual control of object's lifetime (which you mentioned), the other reasons for using heap would include:
Run-time control over object's size (both initial size and it's "later" size, during the program's execution).
For example, you can allocate an array of certain size, which is only known at run time.
With the introduction of VLA (Variable Length Arrays) in C99, it became possible to allocate arrays of fixed run-time size without using heap (this is basically a language-level implementation of 'alloca' functionality). However, in other cases you'd still need heap even in C99.
Run-time control over the total number of objects.
For example, when you build a binary tree stucture, you can't meaningfully allocate the nodes of the tree on the stack in advance. You have to use heap to allocated them "on demand".
Low-level technical considerations, as limited stack space (others already mentioned that).
When you need a large, say, I/O buffer, even for a short time (inside a single function) it makes more sense to request it from the heap instead of declaring a large automatic array.
Stack variables (often called 'automatic variables') is best used for things you want to always be the same, and always be small.
int x;
char foo[32];
Are all stack allocations, These are fixed at compile time too.
The best reason for heap allocation is that you cant always know how much space you need. You often only know this once the program is running. You might have an idea of limits but you would only want to use the exact amount of space required.
If you had to read in a file that could be anything from 1k to 50mb, you would not do this:-
int readdata ( FILE * f ) {
char inputdata[50*1024*1025];
...
return x;
}
That would try to allocate 50mb on the stack, which would usually fail as the stack is usually limited to 256k anyway.
The stack and heap share the same "open" memory space and will have to eventually come to a point where they meet, if you use the entire segment of memory. Keeping the balance between the space that each of them use will have amortized cost later for allocation and de-allocation of memory a smaller asymptotic value.