variable-length-array

Large VLA overflow

瘦欲@ 提交于 2019-11-28 14:02:36
Based on a comment of someone in another thread: VLAs introduce more problems than they solve, because you never know if the declaration is going to crash for x being too large for the stack. This code will overflow because sizeof(a) is too long for the stack: #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> int main(void) { int n = 100000000; int a[4][n]; printf("%zu\n", sizeof(a)); return 0; } But this one can not because sizeof(a) is 8 (the size of a pointer in my computer): #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> int main(void) { int n = 100000000; int (*a)[n]; printf("%zu\n", sizeof(a)); a = malloc

Array of variable length in struct

时光毁灭记忆、已成空白 提交于 2019-11-28 10:31:50
I've created 2 structures to represent images (a pixel and an image one) in C. typedef struct pixel { unsigned char red; unsigned char green; unsigned char blue; }; typedef struct image { int width; int heigth; struct pixel pixels[width][heigth]; }; I am getting an error saying that width and heigth are not defined in the definition of image. I don't get why I'm getting that error and how I can solve it i would suggest an alternative like this: typedef struct { int width; int heigth; struct pixel *pixels; } image; every time, you need to alloc: image img; /* init */ img.pixels=malloc(sizeof

ISO C90 forbids variable length array

泪湿孤枕 提交于 2019-11-28 09:31:52
I'm dynamically calculating the size of an array. Something like: void foo(size_t limit) { char buffer[limit * 14 + 1]; } But just GCC compiler says: error: ISO C90 forbids variable length array ‘buffer’ searching on SO I found this answer : C99 §6.7.5.2: If the size is an expression that is not an integer constant expression... ...each time it is evaluated it shall have a value greater than zero. So, I did the re-declaration of size limit type variable to: void foo(const size_t limit) But it continues to give warning for me. Is this a GCC bug? const -qualifying a variable doesn't make it a

How many memory pages do C compilers on desktop OSes use to detect stack overflows?

帅比萌擦擦* 提交于 2019-11-28 07:33:25
问题 This question is related to but different from this one about variable length arrays in C99. The answers point out that one danger with allocating variable length arrays (or just large arrays of a fixed size) in the stack is that the allocation may fail silently, as opposed to, say, calling malloc , which explicitly tells the caller whether allocation succeeded. Modern non-embedded compilation platforms use an invalid memory zone to detect some stack overflows at no additional cost (the

Is it required that a C Variable Length Array is allocated from the stack?

时光怂恿深爱的人放手 提交于 2019-11-28 03:51:43
问题 After removing all the calls to malloc and calloc from our code for an embedded system, I was surprised to find that malloc was still being linked in. The call graph pointed me to a function which had no explicit *alloc calls, and no calls to any library functions that might allocate, like strdup . I had to look at the generated assembly to realize that it was due to an inlined function which contained a VLA. I thought VLAs had to be stack-allocated. Is this compiler broken? 回答1: There is no

What technical disadvantages do C99-style VLAs have? [closed]

让人想犯罪 __ 提交于 2019-11-28 03:04:39
问题 I heard from many people that variable length array, introduced in C99, are terrible. Some guys on IRC said a minute ago « I don't think C++ will get VLA's, strousoup made some very negative comments about them ». What are the reasons why those people hate VLAs? 回答1: VLAs allocate arrays on the stack, in runtime, making it harder, or even impossible to determine the stack size used at compile time. Since the stack has a rather small amount of memory available (in comparison with the heap),

Variable Length Array overhead in C++?

百般思念 提交于 2019-11-28 02:48:42
问题 Looking at this question: Why does a C/C++ compiler need know the size of an array at compile time ? it came to me that compiler implementers should have had some times to get their feet wet now (it's part of C99 standard, that's 10 years ago) and provide efficient implementations. However it still seems (from the answers) to be considered costly. This somehow surprises me. Of course, I understand that a static offset is much better than a dynamic one in terms of performance, and unlike one

Dynamic arrays in C without malloc?

不想你离开。 提交于 2019-11-28 02:34:28
问题 I've always wondered how I could get away with this: int main(int argc, char **argv) { printf("%p %s %d\n", &argv[1], argv[1], strlen(argv[1])); char copy[strlen(argv[1]) + 1]; strcpy(copy, argv[1]); printf("%p %s %d\n", &copy, copy, strlen(copy)); return 0; } The char array copy gets allocated anyway and the program runs fine, printing out the original and the copy. And Valgrind doesn’t complain about anything. I thought dynamic arrays weren’t possible in C without malloc. Was I wrong? 回答1:

Variable length arrays C99 not supported in C

本小妞迷上赌 提交于 2019-11-28 02:04:13
In Visual Studio 2005, I'm trying to compile a .c file: int i = 6; int a[i]; It doesn't work, so which standard does my compiler follow? Visual Studio only supports C89/90. They have no support for C99. Therefore you cannot use variable-length arrays in Visual Studio. Furthermore, Microsoft has no plans to add support for C99 in their C compiler. 来源: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/7871019/variable-length-arrays-c99-not-supported-in-c

How is the size of a variable length array computed at runtime in C99?

浪尽此生 提交于 2019-11-28 00:10:34
问题 In C89, the length of an array is known at compile time. But in C99, with variable length arrays, the length of an array may be unknown before runtime. So how does it get computed? And why couldn't the length of a dynamically allocated array be computed in the same way? 回答1: From ISO/IEC 9899:TC3 Section 6.7.5.2: Array declarators An ordinary identifier (as defined in 6.2.3) that has a variably modified type shall have either block scope and no linkage or function prototype scope. If an