Will it be precise to say that in
void f() {
int x;
...
}
\"int x;
\" means allocating sizeof(int)
bytes o
There are no specification about that and your assumption is often (but not always) false. Consider some code like
void f() {
int x;
for (x=0; x<1000; x++)
{ // do something with x
}
// x is no more used here
}
First, an optimizing compiler would put x
inside some register of the machine and not consume any stack location (unless e.g. you do something with the address &x
like storing it in a global).
Also the compiler could unroll that loop, and remove x
from the generated code. For example, many compilers would replace
for (x=0; x<5; x++) g(x);
with the equivalent of
g(0); g(1); g(2); g(3); g(4);
and perhaps replace
for (x=0; x<10000; x++) t[x]=x;
with something like
for (α = 0; α < 10000; α += 4)
{ t[α] = α; t[α+1] = α+1; t[α+2] = α+2; t[α+3] = α+3; };
where α is a fresh variable (or perhaps x
itself).
Also, there might be no stack. For C it is uncommon, but some other languages did not have any stack (see e.g. old A.Appel's book compiling with continuations).
BTW, if using GCC you could inspect its intermediate (Gimple) representations with e.g. the MELT probe (or using gcc -fdump-tree-all
which produces hundreds of dump files!).