• C

alloca()


I was debuggin some old code in my project and come across the following lines of code.

            void* _obj;
           _obj = alloca(32768); /* Trick to make the compiler not to mess up with stackframs */

Does it make any sense to any of you ? Is it 64bit safe on solaris ?

Regards,
Lucky.
LVL 1
yluckiAsked:
Who is Participating?

[Product update] Infrastructure Analysis Tool is now available with Business Accounts.Learn More

x
I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.

Kent OlsenDBACommented:

It would be interesting to see how _obj is used later in the function.  :)

By reserving space on the stack instead of the heap, the programmer is ensuring that the buffer will always get free()d when the function exits.  Resetting the stack pointer when the function exits is just a couple of instructions and therefore very, very fast.  Executing the free() function is much slower.

So by using alloca() instead of malloc() the programmer is writing a function that can not possibly have a memory leak (which can greatly simplify some functions) and will have a shorter run time.

But unless I were coding a VERY time-critical operation I would stay away from this kind of practice.

Kent
0
yluckiAuthor Commented:

Well..yup !! It is very time-critical operation.
But _obj is not used any where in the function, after allocating memory.

I just wonder what the significance of 32768 here could be. Is it 64bit safe on solaris ?

Actually my application crashes when run in 64-bit mode. I just wonder if this could be one of the reasons.

-Lucky
0
rstaveleyCommented:
As I see it, the only reason to use alloca is if the size to be allocated is variable.

Using....
--------8<--------
{
            void* _obj;
           _obj = alloca(32768); /* Trick to make the compiler not to mess up with stackframs */
}
--------8<--------
...is inherently slower than...
--------8<--------
{
char _obj[32768];
}
--------8<--------
...because the alloca function needs to do a lot of inline messing around (e.g. saving the stack pointer - I've not looked at the GCC disassembly of this but that's certainly true of Visual C's _alloca implementation - and certainly a function call anyhow). There is no need to use it if you are alloca-ing a constant amount of stack.

Your crash could be because you ran out of stack as a consequence of putting too much data onto it. Unlike the heap, stack size is a fixed allocation predetermined when your program is linked in Windows, predetermined by the kernel in Linux for normal applications (see _STK_LIM in /usr/src/linux/include/linux/sched.h) or determined when a thread is created by the attributes passed to pthread_create if you are using POSIX threads. When you run out of stack space, your program goes kaboom.

Disclaimer: I only recently became aware of alloca. The opinions stated here are those of an over-opinionated newbie :-)
0
Problems using Powershell and Active Directory?

Managing Active Directory does not always have to be complicated.  If you are spending more time trying instead of doing, then it's time to look at something else. For nearly 20 years, AD admins around the world have used one tool for day-to-day AD management: Hyena. Discover why

Kent OlsenDBACommented:

Ok.  The fact that _obj isn't used anywhere in the function is curious.  Add in the fact that the comment associated with the alloca() function call says that this is a compiler trick and that 32768 is 0x80 (MIN_INTEGER on a 16-bit machine).

There's something "funny" with the call in that it appears to take advantage of a trick available on the original platform.

Try taking the alloca() statement out of the code and seeing what happens.


Kent
0

Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by

Your issues matter to us.

Facing a tech roadblock? Get the help and guidance you need from experienced professionals who care. Ask your question anytime, anywhere, with no hassle.

Start your 7-day free trial
rstaveleyCommented:
Good point - it bypasses half of the space addressable by SS:SP in DOS-ville of you increment SP by that amount, if SS is unaltered. [0x8000]
0
yluckiAuthor Commented:

thanks for the information !

well....i would love to modify the code....but it is generated code and we don't have control on the code :-(

will update if something pops up in our further investigation !

thanks,
-lucky.
0
It's more than this solution.Get answers and train to solve all your tech problems - anytime, anywhere.Try it for free Edge Out The Competitionfor your dream job with proven skills and certifications.Get started today Stand Outas the employee with proven skills.Start learning today for free Move Your Career Forwardwith certification training in the latest technologies.Start your trial today
C

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.