int main()
{
char *s1, *sTemp;
s1 = (char*)malloc(sizeof(char)*7);
*(s1 + 0) = 'a';
*(s1 + 1) = 'b';
*(s1 + 2) = 'c';
*(s1 + 3) = 'd';
*(s1 + 4) = 'e';
*(s1 + 5) = 'f';
*(s1 + 6) = '\0';
sTemp = (s1 + 3);
free(sTemp); // shud delete d onwards. But it doesn't !!
return 0;
}
Hello,
In the C above code sTemp should point to the 3rd cell beyond s1 ( occupied by 'd')
So on calling free(sTemp) i expect to have something deleted from this location onwards.
( I purposely mention 'something' as the motive of my experiment initially was to find out till which location the free() ing works )
However i recieve a SIGABRT at the free().
How does free() know that this is not the start of the chunk. and correspondingly can we free up memory only from start of chunks? [ are they only the free-able pointers that free() can accept?? ]
Looking forward to replies :)
From the man pages
free() frees the memory space pointed
to by ptr, which must have been
returned by a previous call to
malloc(), calloc() or realloc().
Otherwise, or if free(ptr) has already
been called before, undefined
behaviour occurs.
Source: http://linux.die.net/man/3/free
About the actual question "how does free know...":
free knows that it is not at the start of the chunk because it maintains metadata that you don't know about. If you think about it, that's necessarily so, because otherwise it could never know how much memory to free, given only an address.
It is not specified how exactly the runtime keeps book of allocation sizes, only that you must never pass any pointer to free that did not come from a function of the malloc family.
Usually this works by malloc allocating a little more memory than needed[1] and writing some metadata in memory preceding the address that is returned. free then just looks at e.g. ptr[-8] or whatever (implementation detail!) to read this metadata.
It can then optionally do some consistency checks, and can determine the size of the memory block (one trivial consistency check that is probably always done is checking proper alignment of the pointer).
Having mentioned that, please please please, don't even think about playing with this metadata.
[1] It often does that anyway to satisfy alignment requirements and because of allocator internals (most allocators manage memory in different "buckets" of fixed size), so if you allocate, say, 4 bytes, you nominally get 4 bytes, but the runtime really allocated 8 or 16 bytes most of the time (without you knowing).
You can only free() pointers that were actually malloced (or calloced, realloced). If you try to free only a portion of memory by passing in a different pointer (even one that is "part" of another pointer), the C runtime will not be pleased (as you can see.)
I think you cannot free the memory because free doesn't know how much memory to free.Your program has information about the address malloc() returned and not for every address in this space.So you can free(s1) but not free(s1+3).Also you can handle your pointers as an array in this example:
s1[0]='a';
You can only free() memory that was previously malloced, calloced, or realloced, as dlev and Daniel have said.
The reason for this is implementation-dependent, but involves the method of keeping track of allocated memory.
Efficient memory allocation is a difficult problem because different memory allocation algorithms work well depending upon how memory is allocated: a few small chunks, half of which are freed, then slightly larger blocks being grabbed, etc.
The objective is to keep the size of the memory block used by the program at a minimum (usually this chunk will be a continuous block of virtual memory), while keeping the usage of the space within that block extremely high (few gaps between used segments of memory).
Remember that these blocks can't be moved except when being realloced, so there's always going to be some wasted space.
To minimize the waste, metadata about (at least) the size of the block is stored just before it. The memory allocator can look through the used blocks when determining how to handle a new request. If you pick a random memory location, whether part of a previously-allocated region or no, this metadata will not be present and free will be unable to determine what should be freed.
You cannot free that pointer the way you are doing, check this question and its answer: Memory Clobbering Error
Related
I'm starting to learn C programming and stumbled upon a situation that shows my lack of understanding of how memory allocation with malloc() works.
In a loop like the following:
// will only know `xlen` at runtime so I guess I have to use malloc here
char *x = malloc((xlen + 1) * sizeof(*x));
assert(x != NULL); // memory allocation failed
while (fgets(line, sizeof(line), fp) != NULL) {
strncpy(x, line, xlen); // copy first xlen characters of line
x[xlen] = '\0'; // ensure null terminating string
// do something with x
// x can now be "reused" for another line/loop iteration
// free(x) - errors out with "pointer being freed was not allocated"
}
fclose(fp)
free(x);
If the statement free(x) is called inside the loop then when I run this program I get an error message something like a.out(37575,0x7fff964ce3c0) malloc: *** error for object 0x7fab47c02630: pointer being freed was not allocated.
Why am I seeing this error message and what is causing it?
Will the memory address block of x be "re-used" at each iteration of the loop? (I'd say yes, and that would actually be what I wanted in this case) In this case, is it safe to only free the allocated memory of x outside the scope of the loop?
free(x); frees the memory allocated by char *x = malloc(.... It frees all of the memory, and you don't have to worry about how much memory that was, as it keeps track of that. You just have to call free(x); once as you correctly do. This is why you get the error if you free it inside the loop.
Does it mean that the memory address block of x will be "re-used" at
each iteration? (I'd say yes, and that would actually be what I wanted
in this case)
Yes, you use the same memory. It overwrites the memory every time.
In this case, is it safe to only free the allocated memory of x
outside the loop scope?
Yes, you have to free it outside of the loop. Because if you free it, then all of it is freed. If you did that inside the loop, then it would be undefined behavior to keep accessing that memory in following loop iterations.
The malloc() function provides a pointer to an area of memory that can then be used just like any pointer to a memory location.
The way to think of malloc() and free() is to consider it in terms of who owns a memory area. The malloc() function owns the memory that it is managing. When you call the malloc() function, or calloc() function, the function takes some of the memory it is managing and transfers ownership to you. When the function is called and the memory allocated there is a transfer of ownership from the memory management system of malloc() to you and at that point you own that memory and it is up to you to manage it. When the free() function is called to release the memory, you are transferring ownership of the memory area from you back to the memory management system of malloc().
Whenever a transfer of ownership is done, the entity that is giving up ownership is not supposed to do anything further with the memory area since it no longer owns it.
So when you do the malloc() you now own the memory and can use and reuse the memory area as much or as little as you want until such time that you call the free() function to give it back to malloc().
A pointer to a memory region given by malloc() is like any other pointer so far as using it is concerned.
Once you have transferred ownership of a memory area back to malloc() by using thee free() function, you can't call free() again with the same pointer without introducing an error. Once a memory area has been returned using free() you no longer have ownership of the memory so you shouldn't try to do anything else with it and that includes calling free() with the pointer again.
How malloc() manages memory is an implementation detail that will vary depending on the compiler and the C Runtime used. In some cases if you malloc() memory then free() the memory and then malloc() the same amount of memory again you may get lucky and get the same memory area again however it is not something you can count on or should expect.
malloc() provides you a pointer to a memory area that has a couple of guarantees. First of all the memory area provided will be at least as large as you requested. It may be larger but it won't be smaller than what you requested. Secondly the address provided will be on a memory boundary suitable for the machine architecture so that you can use the address provided for any variable type whether a built in such as int or double or a struct or an array of some type.
As the owner of the memory area provided by malloc() you are responsible for giving the memory area back to the malloc() functionality once you are done with it.
Your other primary responsibility is to respect the size of the memory area and to not write a larger data block into the area than the size requested when the malloc() was done. You are guaranteed only the amount of memory requested and writing a larger block of data into the memory will probably overwrite memory that you do not own but is owned by something else.
Unfortunately because the malloc() functionality, at least the optimized or non-debug version of the library, is designed with little as possible overhead, the functionality has few consistency and sanity checks in place. The malloc() functionality trusts that you will obey the rules and guidelines and only use what you own. And often when you break the rules and guidelines, you won't see the effect at the point where you have made a mistake but rather at some other point when some mysterious memory corruption is discovered and your program crashes.
You can use and reuse dynamically allocated memory as long as you have not called free() on it. If you free it and attempt to use it again, then you will have undefined behaviour.
You can continue to reusing memory (eg buf created by char *buf = calloc(sizeOfBuf); ) allocated to you on a single call to calloc(), until free(buf) is called, just as if buf was created statically, eg char buf[sizeOfBuf]; = 0. However, if the size of the buffer initially created by using calloc() needs to change, realloc() is available to do this, and is the preferable method. There are some caveats about using realloc however. Here is an example of using realloc, this one packaged into a function that resizes an existing dynamically allocated buffer, and takes care of some of the caveats:
realloc usage example:
// initial call to calloc
char *buf = calloc(sizeOfBuf);
if(buf)
{
while(someConditionIsTrue)
{
// read new content
//...
//new content needs to be added to buf
char *tmp = realloc(buf, newSizeOfBuffer);
if(!tmp)//if failed...
{
free(buf);//... free original buf to prevent memory loss
return NULL;// return null, caller must test for this
}
buf = tmp;//...else copy new mem location back to original pointer
//continue doing stuff with buf
}
//when done with buf, free it
free(buf);
}
One other suggestion, consider calloc() returns uninitialized memory, i.e. you own a space that contains whatever was occupying it when it was given to you. It is a good idea to follow that command with a method to clean up the buffer:
memset(buf, 0, sizeOfBuf);
Or use calloc().
I want to test how much the OS does allocate when I request 24M memory.
for (i = 0; i < 1024*1024; i++)
ptr = (char *)malloc(24);
When I write like this I get RES is 32M from the top command.
ptr = (char *)malloc(24*1024*1024);
But when I do a little change the RES is 244. What is the difference between them? Why is the result 244?
The allocator has its own data structures about the bookkeeping that require memory as well. When you allocate in small chunks (the first case), the allocator has to keep a lot of additional data about where each chunk is allocated and how long it is. Moreover, you may get gaps of unused memory in between the chunks because malloc has a requirement to return a sufficiently aligned block, most usually on an 8-byte boundary.
In the second case, the allocator gives you just one contiguous block and does bookkeeping only for that block.
Always be careful with a large number of small allocations, as the bookkeeping memory overhead may even outweigh the amount of the data itself.
The second allocation barely touches the memory. The allocator tells you "okay, you can have it" but if you don't actually touch the memory, the OS never actually gives it to you, hoping you'll never use it. Bit like a Ponzi scheme. On the other hand, the other method writes something (a few bytes at most) to many pages, so the OS is forced to actually give you the memory.
Try this to verify, you should get about 24m usage:
memset(ptr, 1, 1024 * 1024 * 24);
In short, top doesn't tell you how much you allocated, i.e. what you asked from malloc. It tells you what the OS allocated to your process.
In addition to what has been said:
It could be that some compilers notice how you allocate multiple 24 Byte Blocks in a loop, assigning their addresses to the same pointer and keeping only the last block you allocated, effectively rendering every other malloc from before useless. So it may optimize your whole loop into something like this:
ptr = (char *)malloc(24);
i = 1024*1024;
Surprisingly simple/stupid/basic question, but I have no idea: Suppose I want to return the user of my function a C-string, whose length I do not know at the beginning of the function. I can place only an upper bound on the length at the outset, and, depending on processing, the size may shrink.
The question is, is there anything wrong with allocating enough heap space (the upper bound) and then terminating the string well short of that during processing? i.e. If I stick a '\0' into the middle of the allocated memory, does (a.) free() still work properly, and (b.) does the space after the '\0' become inconsequential? Once '\0' is added, does the memory just get returned, or is it sitting there hogging space until free() is called? Is it generally bad programming style to leave this hanging space there, in order to save some upfront programming time computing the necessary space before calling malloc?
To give this some context, let's say I want to remove consecutive duplicates, like this:
input "Hello oOOOo !!" --> output "Helo oOo !"
... and some code below showing how I'm pre-computing the size resulting from my operation, effectively performing processing twice to get the heap size right.
char* RemoveChains(const char* str)
{
if (str == NULL) {
return NULL;
}
if (strlen(str) == 0) {
char* outstr = (char*)malloc(1);
*outstr = '\0';
return outstr;
}
const char* original = str; // for reuse
char prev = *str++; // [prev][str][str+1]...
unsigned int outlen = 1; // first char auto-counted
// Determine length necessary by mimicking processing
while (*str) {
if (*str != prev) { // new char encountered
++outlen;
prev = *str; // restart chain
}
++str; // step pointer along input
}
// Declare new string to be perfect size
char* outstr = (char*)malloc(outlen + 1);
outstr[outlen] = '\0';
outstr[0] = original[0];
outlen = 1;
// Construct output
prev = *original++;
while (*original) {
if (*original != prev) {
outstr[outlen++] = *original;
prev = *original;
}
++original;
}
return outstr;
}
If I stick a '\0' into the middle of the allocated memory, does
(a.) free() still work properly, and
Yes.
(b.) does the space after the '\0' become inconsequential? Once '\0' is added, does the memory just get returned, or is it sitting there hogging space until free() is called?
Depends. Often, when you allocate large amounts of heap space, the system first allocates virtual address space - as you write to the pages some actual physical memory is assigned to back it (and that may later get swapped out to disk when your OS has virtual memory support). Famously, this distinction between wasteful allocation of virtual address space and actual physical/swap memory allows sparse arrays to be reasonably memory efficient on such OSs.
Now, the granularity of this virtual addressing and paging is in memory page sizes - that might be 4k, 8k, 16k...? Most OSs have a function you can call to find out the page size. So, if you're doing a lot of small allocations then rounding up to page sizes is wasteful, and if you have a limited address space relative to the amount of memory you really need to use then depending on virtual addressing in the way described above won't scale (for example, 4GB RAM with 32-bit addressing). On the other hand, if you have a 64-bit process running with say 32GB of RAM, and are doing relatively few such string allocations, you have an enormous amount of virtual address space to play with and the rounding up to page size won't amount to much.
But - note the difference between writing throughout the buffer then terminating it at some earlier point (in which case the once-written-to memory will have backing memory and could end up in swap) versus having a big buffer in which you only ever write to the first bit then terminate (in which case backing memory is only allocated for the used space rounded up to page size).
It's also worth pointing out that on many operating systems heap memory may not be returned to the Operating System until the process terminates: instead, the malloc/free library notifies the OS when it needs to grow the heap (e.g. using sbrk() on UNIX or VirtualAlloc() on Windows). In that sense, free() memory is free for your process to re-use, but not free for other processes to use. Some Operating Systems do optimise this - for example, using a distinct and independently releasble memory region for very large allocations.
Is it generally bad programming style to leave this hanging space there, in order to save some upfront programming time computing the necessary space before calling malloc?
Again, it depends on how many such allocations you're dealing with. If there are a great many relative to your virtual address space / RAM - you want to explicitly let the memory library know not all the originally requested memory is actually needed using realloc(), or you could even use strdup() to allocate a new block more tightly based on actual needs (then free() the original) - depending on your malloc/free library implementation that might work out better or worse, but very few applications would be significantly affected by any difference.
Sometimes your code may be in a library where you can't guess how many string instances the calling application will be managing - in such cases it's better to provide slower behaviour that never gets too bad... so lean towards shrinking the memory blocks to fit the string data (a set number of additional operations so doesn't affect big-O efficiency) rather than having an unknown proportion of the original string buffer wasted (in a pathological case - zero or one character used after arbitrarily large allocations). As a performance optimisation you might only bother returning memory if unusued space is >= the used space - tune to taste, or make it caller-configurable.
You comment on another answer:
So it comes down to judging whether the realloc will take longer, or the preprocessing size determination?
If performance is your top priority, then yes - you'd want to profile. If you're not CPU bound, then as a general rule take the "preprocessing" hit and do a right-sized allocation - there's just less fragmentation and mess. Countering that, if you have to write a special preprocessing mode for some function - that's an extra "surface" for errors and code to maintain. (This trade-off decision is commonly needed when implementing your own asprintf() from snprintf(), but there at least you can trust snprintf() to act as documented and don't personally have to maintain it).
Once '\0' is added, does the memory just get returned, or is it
sitting there hogging space until free() is called?
There's nothing magical about \0. You have to call realloc if you want to "shrink" the allocated memory. Otherwise the memory will just sit there until you call free.
If I stick a '\0' into the middle of the allocated memory, does (a.)
free() still work properly
Whatever you do in that memory free will always work properly if you pass it the exact same pointer returned by malloc. Of course if you write outside it all bets are off.
\0 is just one more character from malloc and free perspective, they don't care what data you put in the memory. So free will still work whether you add \0 in the middle or don't add \0 at all. The extra space allocated will still be there, it won't be returned back to the process as soon as you add \0 to the memory. I personally would prefer to allocate only the required amount of memory instead of allocating at some upper bound as that will just wasting the resource.
As soon as you get memory from heap by calling malloc(), the memory is yours to use. Inserting \0 is like inserting any other character. This memory will remain in your possession until you free it or until OS claims it back.
The \0is a pure convention to interpret character arrays as stings - it is independent of the memory management. I.e., if you want to get your money back, you should call realloc. The string does not care about memory (what is a source of many security problems).
malloc just allocates a chunk of memory .. Its upto you to use however you want and call free from the initial pointer position... Inserting '\0' in the middle has no consequence...
To be specific malloc doesnt know what type of memory you want (It returns onle a void pointer) ..
Let us assume you wish to allocate 10 bytes of memory starting 0x10 to 0x19 ..
char * ptr = (char *)malloc(sizeof(char) * 10);
Inserting a null at 5th position (0x14) does not free the memory 0x15 onwards...
However a free from 0x10 frees the entire chunk of 10 bytes..
free() will still work with a NUL byte in memory
the space will remain wasted until free() is called, or unless you subsequently shrink the allocation
Generally, memory is memory is memory. It doesn't care what you write into it. BUT it has a race, or if you prefer a flavor (malloc, new, VirtualAlloc, HeapAlloc, etc). This means that the party that allocates a piece of memory must also provide the means to deallocate it. If your API comes in a DLL, then it should provide a free function of some sort.
This of course puts a burden on the caller right?
So why not put the WHOLE burden on the caller?
The BEST way to deal with dynamically allocated memory is to NOT allocate it yourself. Have the caller allocate it and pass it on to you. He knows what flavor he allocated, and he is responsible to free it whenever he is done using it.
How does the caller know how much to allocate?
Like many Windows APIs have your function return the required amount of bytes when called e.g. with a NULL pointer, then do the job when provided with a non-NULL pointer (using IsBadWritePtr if it is suitable for your case to double-check accessibility).
This can also be much much more efficient. Memory allocations COST a lot. Too many memory allocations cause heap fragmentation and then the allocations cost even more. That's why in kernel mode we use the so called "look-aside lists". To minimize the number of memory allocations done, we reuse the blocks we have already allocated and "freed", using services that the NT Kernel provides to driver writers.
If you pass on the responsibility for memory allocation to your caller, then he might be passing you cheap memory from the stack (_alloca), or passing you the same memory over and over again without any additional allocations. You don't care of course, but you DO allow your caller to be in charge of optimal memory handling.
To elaborate on the use of the NULL terminator in C:
You cannot allocate a "C string" you can allocate a char array and store a string in it, but malloc and free just see it as an array of the requested length.
A C string is not a data type but a convention for using a char array where the null character '\0' is treated as the string terminator.
This is a way to pass strings around without having to pass a length value as a separate argument. Some other programming languages have explicit string types that store a length along with the character data to allow passing strings in a single parameter.
Functions that document their arguments as "C strings" are passed char arrays but have no way of knowing how big the array is without the null terminator so if it is not there things will go horribly wrong.
You will notice functions that expect char arrays that are not necessarily treated as strings will always require a buffer length parameter to be passed.
For example if you want to process char data where a zero byte is a valid value you can't use '\0' as a terminator character.
You could do what some of the MS Windows APIs do where you (the caller) pass a pointer and the size of the memory you allocated. If the size isn't enough, you're told how many bytes to allocate. If it was enough, the memory is used and the result is the number of bytes used.
Thus the decision about how to efficiently use memory is left to the caller. They can allocate a fixed 255 bytes (common when working with paths in Windows) and use the result from the function call to know whether more bytes are needed (not the case with paths due to MAX_PATH being 255 without bypassing Win32 API) or whether most of the bytes can be ignored...
The caller could also pass zero as the memory size and be told exactly how much needs to be allocated - not as efficient processing-wise, but could be more efficient space-wise.
You can certainly preallocate to an upperbound, and use all or something less.
Just make sure you actually use all or something less.
Making two passes is also fine.
You asked the right questions about the tradeoffs.
How do you decide?
Use two passes, initially, because:
1. you'll know you aren't wasting memory.
2. you're going to profile to find out where
you need to optimize for speed anyway.
3. upperbounds are hard to get right before
you've written and tested and modified and
used and updated the code in response to new
requirements for a while.
4. simplest thing that could possibly work.
You might tighten up the code a little, too.
Shorter is usually better. And the more the
code takes advantage of known truths, the more
comfortable I am that it does what it says.
char* copyWithoutDuplicateChains(const char* str)
{
if (str == NULL) return NULL;
const char* s = str;
char prev = *s; // [prev][s+1]...
unsigned int outlen = 1; // first character counted
// Determine length necessary by mimicking processing
while (*s)
{ while (*++s == prev); // skip duplicates
++outlen; // new character encountered
prev = *s; // restart chain
}
// Construct output
char* outstr = (char*)malloc(outlen);
s = str;
*outstr++ = *s; // first character copied
while (*s)
{ while (*++s == prev); // skip duplicates
*outstr++ = *s; // copy new character
}
// done
return outstr;
}
I was curious whether there exists a dynamic memory allocation system that allows the programmer to free part of an allocated block.
For example:
char* a = malloc (40);
//b points to the split second half of the block, or to NULL if it's beyond the end
//a points to a area of 10 bytes
b = partial_free (a+10, /*size*/ 10)
Thoughts on why this is wise/unwise/difficult? Ways to do this?
Seems to me like it could be useful.
Thanks!
=====edit=====
after some research, it seems that the bootmem allocator for the linux kernel allows something similar to this operation with the bootmem_free call. So, I'm curious -- why is it that the bootmem allocator allows this, but ANSI C does not?
No there is no such function which allows parital freeing of memory.
You could however use realloc() to resize memory.
From the c standard:
7.22.3.5 The realloc function
#include <stdlib.h>
void *realloc(void *ptr, size_t size);
The realloc function deallocates the old object pointed to by ptr and returns a pointer to a new object that has the size specified by size. The contents of the new object shall be the same as that of the old object prior to deallocation, up to the lesser of the new and old sizes. Any bytes in the new object beyond the size of the old object have indeterminate values.
There is no ready-made function for this, but doing this isn't impossible. Firstly, there is realloc() . realloc takes a pointer to a block of memory and resizes the allocation to the size specified.
Now, if you have allocated some memory:
char * tmp = malloc(2048);
and you intend to deallocate the first, 1 K of memory, you may do:
tmp = realloc(foo, 2048-1024);
However, the problem in this case is that you cannot be certain that tmp will remain unchanged. Since, the function might just deallocate the entire 2K memory and move it elsewhere.
Now I'm not sure about the exact implementation of realloc, but from what I understand, the code:
myptr = malloc( x - y );
actually mallocs a new memory buffer of size x-y, then it copies the bytes that fit using memcpy and finally frees the original allocated memory.
This may create some potential problems. For example, the new reallocated memory may be located at a different address, so any past pointers you may have may become invalidated. Resulting in undefined runtime errors, segmentation faults and general debugging hell. So I would try to avoid resorting to this.
Firstly, I cannot think of any situation where you would be likely to need such a thing (when there exists realloc to increase/decrease the memory as mentioned in the answers).
I would like to add another thing. In whatever implementations I have seen of the malloc subsystem (which I admit is not a lot), malloc and free are implemented to be dependent on something called as the prefix byte(s). So whatever address is returned to you by malloc, internally the malloc subsystem will allocate some additional byte(s) of memory prior to the address returned to you, to store sanity check information which includes number of allocated bytes and possible what allocation policy you use (if your OS supports multiple mem allocation policies) etc. When you say something like free (x bytes), the malloc subsystem goes back to peek back into the prefix byte to sanity check and only if it finds the prefix in place does the free successfully happen. Therefore, it will not allow you to free some number of blocks starting in between.
Simple question about the realloc function in C:
If I use realloc to shrink the memory block that a pointer is pointing to, does the "extra" memory get freed? Or does it need to be freed manually somehow?
For example, if I do
int *myPointer = malloc(100*sizeof(int));
myPointer = realloc(myPointer,50*sizeof(int));
free(myPointer);
Will I have a memory leak?
No, you won't have a memory leak. realloc will simply mark the rest "available" for future malloc operations.
But you still have to free myPointer later on. As an aside, if you use 0 as the size in realloc, it will have the same effect as free on some implementations. As Steve Jessop and R.. said in the comments, you shouldn't rely on it.
There is definitely not a memory leak, but any of at least 3 things could happen when you call realloc to reduce the size:
The implementation splits the allocated memory block at the new requested length and frees the unused portion at the end.
The implementation makes a new allocation with the new size, copies the old contents to the new location, and frees the entire old allocation.
The implementation does nothing at all.
Option 3 would be a rather bad implementation, but perfectly legal; there's still no "memory leak" because the whole thing will still be freed if you later call free on it.
As for options 1 and 2, which is better depends a lot on whether you favor performance or avoiding memory fragmentation. I believe most real-world implementations will lean towards doing option 1.
The new code still leaks the original allocation if the realloc fails. I expect most implementations won't ever fail to shrink a block, but it's allowed. The correct way to call realloc, whether growing or shrinking the block, is void *tmp = realloc(myPointer, 50*sizeof(int)); if (!tmp) { /* handle error somehow. myPointer still points to the old block, which is still allocated */ } myPointer = tmp;. – Steve Jessop 48 mins ago
Hey, I couldn't figure out how to reply to your comment, sorry.
Do I need to cast tmp to the type of myPointer? In this case, do I need to write
myPointer = (int*)tmp
Also, in this case, when I do
free(myPointer)
The memory pointed at by tmp will be freed as well, right? So no need to do
free(myPointer)
free(tmp)
In the way you have given your code, yes, it might have a leak. The idea of realloc is that it can return you a new location of your data. Like you do it in your question you lose that pointer that realloc sends you.
int *myPointer2 = realloc(myPointer,50*sizeof(int));
assert(myPointer2);
myPointer = myPointer2;
I guess the process for realloc() is, it first dealocates the previous memory block then, allocates again (My college teacher told that). If that remains the case, it would have already freed the extra 50 bytes. And if there is data in 100 byte memory, will get assigned to 50 reallocated bytes memory, which may, lead to loss of data. So there shouldn't be a Memory Leak.