Where the following objects are stored in memory?
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#define TEXT "Good luck on this test"
int main () {
char* cPtr = (char*)malloc(sizeof(TEXT));
strncpy(cPtr,TEXT,sizeof(TEXT));
printf("%sn",cPtr);
free(cPtr);
return(EXIT_SUCCESS);
}
- The memory for variable
cPtr
? - The address to which
cPtr
points? - The code for
malloc()
? - The code that
malloc()
calls to move the brk pointer for the
process running this program?
I think its:
- Heap
- Stack
- Data segment
- Shared library memory
Is it correct?
c
|
show 5 more comments
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#define TEXT "Good luck on this test"
int main () {
char* cPtr = (char*)malloc(sizeof(TEXT));
strncpy(cPtr,TEXT,sizeof(TEXT));
printf("%sn",cPtr);
free(cPtr);
return(EXIT_SUCCESS);
}
- The memory for variable
cPtr
? - The address to which
cPtr
points? - The code for
malloc()
? - The code that
malloc()
calls to move the brk pointer for the
process running this program?
I think its:
- Heap
- Stack
- Data segment
- Shared library memory
Is it correct?
c
I don't believe 3. is correct. TheTEXT
macro would be stored in the data segment though.
– Patrick Roberts
Nov 19 at 23:24
1
Some systems don't have a heap or a stack
– M.M
Nov 19 at 23:25
1
An answer to this question would be platform specific.
– VTT
Nov 19 at 23:29
2
I think 1 and 2 are backwards.char *cPtr
is on the stack. "The address to whichcPtr
points" sounds like they're asking about the memory allocated bymalloc
; that's on the heap.
– Schwern
Nov 19 at 23:30
1
Nothing in the C/C++ standard mandates that anything must end on the stack, or even that the thing known as “stack” exists. You need to look in the assembly output to see what happens, as all of it is implementation-defined. I.e. the question should also state what exact compiler is spoken about, and what compiler options.
– Kuba Ober
Nov 20 at 3:04
|
show 5 more comments
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#define TEXT "Good luck on this test"
int main () {
char* cPtr = (char*)malloc(sizeof(TEXT));
strncpy(cPtr,TEXT,sizeof(TEXT));
printf("%sn",cPtr);
free(cPtr);
return(EXIT_SUCCESS);
}
- The memory for variable
cPtr
? - The address to which
cPtr
points? - The code for
malloc()
? - The code that
malloc()
calls to move the brk pointer for the
process running this program?
I think its:
- Heap
- Stack
- Data segment
- Shared library memory
Is it correct?
c
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#define TEXT "Good luck on this test"
int main () {
char* cPtr = (char*)malloc(sizeof(TEXT));
strncpy(cPtr,TEXT,sizeof(TEXT));
printf("%sn",cPtr);
free(cPtr);
return(EXIT_SUCCESS);
}
- The memory for variable
cPtr
? - The address to which
cPtr
points? - The code for
malloc()
? - The code that
malloc()
calls to move the brk pointer for the
process running this program?
I think its:
- Heap
- Stack
- Data segment
- Shared library memory
Is it correct?
c
c
edited Nov 19 at 23:56
Dennis Vash
573316
573316
asked Nov 19 at 23:21
Harold L
32
32
I don't believe 3. is correct. TheTEXT
macro would be stored in the data segment though.
– Patrick Roberts
Nov 19 at 23:24
1
Some systems don't have a heap or a stack
– M.M
Nov 19 at 23:25
1
An answer to this question would be platform specific.
– VTT
Nov 19 at 23:29
2
I think 1 and 2 are backwards.char *cPtr
is on the stack. "The address to whichcPtr
points" sounds like they're asking about the memory allocated bymalloc
; that's on the heap.
– Schwern
Nov 19 at 23:30
1
Nothing in the C/C++ standard mandates that anything must end on the stack, or even that the thing known as “stack” exists. You need to look in the assembly output to see what happens, as all of it is implementation-defined. I.e. the question should also state what exact compiler is spoken about, and what compiler options.
– Kuba Ober
Nov 20 at 3:04
|
show 5 more comments
I don't believe 3. is correct. TheTEXT
macro would be stored in the data segment though.
– Patrick Roberts
Nov 19 at 23:24
1
Some systems don't have a heap or a stack
– M.M
Nov 19 at 23:25
1
An answer to this question would be platform specific.
– VTT
Nov 19 at 23:29
2
I think 1 and 2 are backwards.char *cPtr
is on the stack. "The address to whichcPtr
points" sounds like they're asking about the memory allocated bymalloc
; that's on the heap.
– Schwern
Nov 19 at 23:30
1
Nothing in the C/C++ standard mandates that anything must end on the stack, or even that the thing known as “stack” exists. You need to look in the assembly output to see what happens, as all of it is implementation-defined. I.e. the question should also state what exact compiler is spoken about, and what compiler options.
– Kuba Ober
Nov 20 at 3:04
I don't believe 3. is correct. The
TEXT
macro would be stored in the data segment though.– Patrick Roberts
Nov 19 at 23:24
I don't believe 3. is correct. The
TEXT
macro would be stored in the data segment though.– Patrick Roberts
Nov 19 at 23:24
1
1
Some systems don't have a heap or a stack
– M.M
Nov 19 at 23:25
Some systems don't have a heap or a stack
– M.M
Nov 19 at 23:25
1
1
An answer to this question would be platform specific.
– VTT
Nov 19 at 23:29
An answer to this question would be platform specific.
– VTT
Nov 19 at 23:29
2
2
I think 1 and 2 are backwards.
char *cPtr
is on the stack. "The address to which cPtr
points" sounds like they're asking about the memory allocated by malloc
; that's on the heap.– Schwern
Nov 19 at 23:30
I think 1 and 2 are backwards.
char *cPtr
is on the stack. "The address to which cPtr
points" sounds like they're asking about the memory allocated by malloc
; that's on the heap.– Schwern
Nov 19 at 23:30
1
1
Nothing in the C/C++ standard mandates that anything must end on the stack, or even that the thing known as “stack” exists. You need to look in the assembly output to see what happens, as all of it is implementation-defined. I.e. the question should also state what exact compiler is spoken about, and what compiler options.
– Kuba Ober
Nov 20 at 3:04
Nothing in the C/C++ standard mandates that anything must end on the stack, or even that the thing known as “stack” exists. You need to look in the assembly output to see what happens, as all of it is implementation-defined. I.e. the question should also state what exact compiler is spoken about, and what compiler options.
– Kuba Ober
Nov 20 at 3:04
|
show 5 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
The only true answer is, wherever the compiler feels like. That's probably not the answer you want, so let's examine what a reasonable compiler would probably choose.
cPtr
would probably not be stored in memory at all. It fits in a register (pointers almost always fit in CPU registers), and you never take its address, so it will probably be located in one or more registers. It might be written to stack and then read back to preserve its value across thestrncpy
andprintf
calls, or its value may be preserved in some other way. (Note that the compiler doesn't need to preserve its value after thefree
call, since you never use it again.)
malloc
will almost always return a heap pointer, since that's where allocating dynamic memory is the easiest, if not the only possible location. So the buffer will be in the heap.- The compiler has a choice here. It might reference a linked
malloc
from some shared library, in which case it will reside in shared library code, or it might just inline all or part of the function, in which case some or all of it might reside in your program's code. - This assumes a POSIX environment. In every such environment I know, this is handled by a system call,
sbrk
. Thus, this code will reside within the operating system's kernel code.
EDIT: since some people mentioned the static string, "Good luck on this test"
, I figured discussing that one would be worthwhile as well. This string appears in three contexts:
- as a macro replacement (through
#define
), which is handled by the preprocessor before compiling, and thus doesn't go anywhere at all in the final output; - as an argument to the
strncpy
function, in which case it is included as read-only data, either together with the program's executable code or in a separate section made exclusively for read-only data; - as an argument to the
sizeof
operator. This is the most interesting case of the three. Technically, it should be equivalent to the previous one; however, many compilers can statically calculate the size of a constant string (it's very straightforward, after all), and thus they can replacesizeof(TEXT)
with a plain23
and avoid emitting the string altogether (for that occurrence).
+1, but your last bullet about sizeof(TEXT) sounds like you're thinking of strlen, though: sizeof is compile time except for variable length arrays.
– Rup
Nov 20 at 7:01
@Rup I'm not sure if this is true for all versions of C, though.
– aaaaaa123456789
Nov 20 at 7:46
add a comment |
It's actually a bit of a leading question, because it presumes that everything will be in memory.
Local variables, as well as temporary values without a name, are only placed on the stack if necessary. There are different reasons why that might be necessary, for example:
- The compiler is dumb or made to act dumb by compiling at the lowest possible optimization level.
- The target machine has an odd architecture without (or very few) registers (rare).
- There are too many local variables and temporary values live simultaneously to fit them all into registers at that point in the program, so some of them get "spilled". Being spilled is not a property of a variable exactly, but rather of a specific live range. In some sense a variable can therefore move around (if it has multiple associated live ranges and they get allocated differently) and even be in multiple places simultaneously (depending on how you count temporary copies, or unambiguously when loop unrolling is involved).
- The address of the local variable is taken and used in such a way that the compiler cannot prove that the variable does not need to be in memory (may induce live range splitting so the variable is only actually in memory temporarily).
Most likely none of the above apply (the last item definitely does not apply, the address is not taken) so we should expect cPtr
to spend its entire lifetime in registers.
Testing it out on clang targeting x64 we might get code like this:
main: # @main
push rbx
mov edi, 23
call malloc
mov rbx, rax
; at this point, rbx roughly corresponds to cPtr
; it's also still in rax but rax is overwritten by the next operation
movabs rax, 32777976875610985 ; btw this weird number is a piece of string
mov qword ptr [rbx + 15], rax
movups xmm0, xmmword ptr [rip + .L.str]
movups xmmword ptr [rbx], xmm0
; rbx (cPtr) is copied to rdi in order to give it to puts as argument
mov rdi, rbx
call puts
mov rdi, rbx
call free
xor eax, eax
pop rbx
ret
.L.str:
.asciz "Good luck on this test"
Targeting MIPS or ARM or PowerPC with eg GCC shows a similar pattern of cPtr
not being on the stack but in a register (or several registers, depending on how you count), though of course the code looks pretty different.
A fun detail of the code above is that while the entire string does appear in a data segment (rodata), a piece of it also appears in the code segment as the immediate operand of that movabs
.
add a comment |
- Stack
- Heap
- Data
- Shared library
That is how i would answer this question.
char * cPtr = NULL;
declares a char * on the stack and assigns it to point to NULL, In your instance the malloc() assignes it to point to heap memory but the cPtr variable itself is on the stack.Malloc allocates heap memory.
The TEXT string is in data segment, and sizeof ("TEXT STRING") will be handled as an operator to an address in data segment. I assume your question means the "code for the arguments to malloc"
Your code doesnt define the function malloc so whatever its doing must be happening due to one of the libraries you #included.
I may be wrong on one or more of these answers but that is my understanding. If someone can tell me where I am wrong ill correct the answer.
Thanks for the down-vote without any comment! It really helps me fix my answer.
– Bwebb
Nov 20 at 1:18
1
Read other answers to understand what’s wrong. But in general, it’s misguided to talk about what a compiler might do: have you actually looked at what it does, or are you making stuff up? Have you ever checked how well you can predict what a compiler does by writing code, predicting, and checking actual output? You should well get the compiler and look at its output. It’s not magic. Godbolt compiler explorer exists for a reason: so that people don’t have to guess, as such guesses are incorrect more often than not.
– Kuba Ober
Nov 20 at 3:07
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53384055%2fwhere-the-following-objects-are-stored-in-memory%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The only true answer is, wherever the compiler feels like. That's probably not the answer you want, so let's examine what a reasonable compiler would probably choose.
cPtr
would probably not be stored in memory at all. It fits in a register (pointers almost always fit in CPU registers), and you never take its address, so it will probably be located in one or more registers. It might be written to stack and then read back to preserve its value across thestrncpy
andprintf
calls, or its value may be preserved in some other way. (Note that the compiler doesn't need to preserve its value after thefree
call, since you never use it again.)
malloc
will almost always return a heap pointer, since that's where allocating dynamic memory is the easiest, if not the only possible location. So the buffer will be in the heap.- The compiler has a choice here. It might reference a linked
malloc
from some shared library, in which case it will reside in shared library code, or it might just inline all or part of the function, in which case some or all of it might reside in your program's code. - This assumes a POSIX environment. In every such environment I know, this is handled by a system call,
sbrk
. Thus, this code will reside within the operating system's kernel code.
EDIT: since some people mentioned the static string, "Good luck on this test"
, I figured discussing that one would be worthwhile as well. This string appears in three contexts:
- as a macro replacement (through
#define
), which is handled by the preprocessor before compiling, and thus doesn't go anywhere at all in the final output; - as an argument to the
strncpy
function, in which case it is included as read-only data, either together with the program's executable code or in a separate section made exclusively for read-only data; - as an argument to the
sizeof
operator. This is the most interesting case of the three. Technically, it should be equivalent to the previous one; however, many compilers can statically calculate the size of a constant string (it's very straightforward, after all), and thus they can replacesizeof(TEXT)
with a plain23
and avoid emitting the string altogether (for that occurrence).
+1, but your last bullet about sizeof(TEXT) sounds like you're thinking of strlen, though: sizeof is compile time except for variable length arrays.
– Rup
Nov 20 at 7:01
@Rup I'm not sure if this is true for all versions of C, though.
– aaaaaa123456789
Nov 20 at 7:46
add a comment |
The only true answer is, wherever the compiler feels like. That's probably not the answer you want, so let's examine what a reasonable compiler would probably choose.
cPtr
would probably not be stored in memory at all. It fits in a register (pointers almost always fit in CPU registers), and you never take its address, so it will probably be located in one or more registers. It might be written to stack and then read back to preserve its value across thestrncpy
andprintf
calls, or its value may be preserved in some other way. (Note that the compiler doesn't need to preserve its value after thefree
call, since you never use it again.)
malloc
will almost always return a heap pointer, since that's where allocating dynamic memory is the easiest, if not the only possible location. So the buffer will be in the heap.- The compiler has a choice here. It might reference a linked
malloc
from some shared library, in which case it will reside in shared library code, or it might just inline all or part of the function, in which case some or all of it might reside in your program's code. - This assumes a POSIX environment. In every such environment I know, this is handled by a system call,
sbrk
. Thus, this code will reside within the operating system's kernel code.
EDIT: since some people mentioned the static string, "Good luck on this test"
, I figured discussing that one would be worthwhile as well. This string appears in three contexts:
- as a macro replacement (through
#define
), which is handled by the preprocessor before compiling, and thus doesn't go anywhere at all in the final output; - as an argument to the
strncpy
function, in which case it is included as read-only data, either together with the program's executable code or in a separate section made exclusively for read-only data; - as an argument to the
sizeof
operator. This is the most interesting case of the three. Technically, it should be equivalent to the previous one; however, many compilers can statically calculate the size of a constant string (it's very straightforward, after all), and thus they can replacesizeof(TEXT)
with a plain23
and avoid emitting the string altogether (for that occurrence).
+1, but your last bullet about sizeof(TEXT) sounds like you're thinking of strlen, though: sizeof is compile time except for variable length arrays.
– Rup
Nov 20 at 7:01
@Rup I'm not sure if this is true for all versions of C, though.
– aaaaaa123456789
Nov 20 at 7:46
add a comment |
The only true answer is, wherever the compiler feels like. That's probably not the answer you want, so let's examine what a reasonable compiler would probably choose.
cPtr
would probably not be stored in memory at all. It fits in a register (pointers almost always fit in CPU registers), and you never take its address, so it will probably be located in one or more registers. It might be written to stack and then read back to preserve its value across thestrncpy
andprintf
calls, or its value may be preserved in some other way. (Note that the compiler doesn't need to preserve its value after thefree
call, since you never use it again.)
malloc
will almost always return a heap pointer, since that's where allocating dynamic memory is the easiest, if not the only possible location. So the buffer will be in the heap.- The compiler has a choice here. It might reference a linked
malloc
from some shared library, in which case it will reside in shared library code, or it might just inline all or part of the function, in which case some or all of it might reside in your program's code. - This assumes a POSIX environment. In every such environment I know, this is handled by a system call,
sbrk
. Thus, this code will reside within the operating system's kernel code.
EDIT: since some people mentioned the static string, "Good luck on this test"
, I figured discussing that one would be worthwhile as well. This string appears in three contexts:
- as a macro replacement (through
#define
), which is handled by the preprocessor before compiling, and thus doesn't go anywhere at all in the final output; - as an argument to the
strncpy
function, in which case it is included as read-only data, either together with the program's executable code or in a separate section made exclusively for read-only data; - as an argument to the
sizeof
operator. This is the most interesting case of the three. Technically, it should be equivalent to the previous one; however, many compilers can statically calculate the size of a constant string (it's very straightforward, after all), and thus they can replacesizeof(TEXT)
with a plain23
and avoid emitting the string altogether (for that occurrence).
The only true answer is, wherever the compiler feels like. That's probably not the answer you want, so let's examine what a reasonable compiler would probably choose.
cPtr
would probably not be stored in memory at all. It fits in a register (pointers almost always fit in CPU registers), and you never take its address, so it will probably be located in one or more registers. It might be written to stack and then read back to preserve its value across thestrncpy
andprintf
calls, or its value may be preserved in some other way. (Note that the compiler doesn't need to preserve its value after thefree
call, since you never use it again.)
malloc
will almost always return a heap pointer, since that's where allocating dynamic memory is the easiest, if not the only possible location. So the buffer will be in the heap.- The compiler has a choice here. It might reference a linked
malloc
from some shared library, in which case it will reside in shared library code, or it might just inline all or part of the function, in which case some or all of it might reside in your program's code. - This assumes a POSIX environment. In every such environment I know, this is handled by a system call,
sbrk
. Thus, this code will reside within the operating system's kernel code.
EDIT: since some people mentioned the static string, "Good luck on this test"
, I figured discussing that one would be worthwhile as well. This string appears in three contexts:
- as a macro replacement (through
#define
), which is handled by the preprocessor before compiling, and thus doesn't go anywhere at all in the final output; - as an argument to the
strncpy
function, in which case it is included as read-only data, either together with the program's executable code or in a separate section made exclusively for read-only data; - as an argument to the
sizeof
operator. This is the most interesting case of the three. Technically, it should be equivalent to the previous one; however, many compilers can statically calculate the size of a constant string (it's very straightforward, after all), and thus they can replacesizeof(TEXT)
with a plain23
and avoid emitting the string altogether (for that occurrence).
edited Nov 20 at 0:29
answered Nov 20 at 0:20
aaaaaa123456789
3,1041227
3,1041227
+1, but your last bullet about sizeof(TEXT) sounds like you're thinking of strlen, though: sizeof is compile time except for variable length arrays.
– Rup
Nov 20 at 7:01
@Rup I'm not sure if this is true for all versions of C, though.
– aaaaaa123456789
Nov 20 at 7:46
add a comment |
+1, but your last bullet about sizeof(TEXT) sounds like you're thinking of strlen, though: sizeof is compile time except for variable length arrays.
– Rup
Nov 20 at 7:01
@Rup I'm not sure if this is true for all versions of C, though.
– aaaaaa123456789
Nov 20 at 7:46
+1, but your last bullet about sizeof(TEXT) sounds like you're thinking of strlen, though: sizeof is compile time except for variable length arrays.
– Rup
Nov 20 at 7:01
+1, but your last bullet about sizeof(TEXT) sounds like you're thinking of strlen, though: sizeof is compile time except for variable length arrays.
– Rup
Nov 20 at 7:01
@Rup I'm not sure if this is true for all versions of C, though.
– aaaaaa123456789
Nov 20 at 7:46
@Rup I'm not sure if this is true for all versions of C, though.
– aaaaaa123456789
Nov 20 at 7:46
add a comment |
It's actually a bit of a leading question, because it presumes that everything will be in memory.
Local variables, as well as temporary values without a name, are only placed on the stack if necessary. There are different reasons why that might be necessary, for example:
- The compiler is dumb or made to act dumb by compiling at the lowest possible optimization level.
- The target machine has an odd architecture without (or very few) registers (rare).
- There are too many local variables and temporary values live simultaneously to fit them all into registers at that point in the program, so some of them get "spilled". Being spilled is not a property of a variable exactly, but rather of a specific live range. In some sense a variable can therefore move around (if it has multiple associated live ranges and they get allocated differently) and even be in multiple places simultaneously (depending on how you count temporary copies, or unambiguously when loop unrolling is involved).
- The address of the local variable is taken and used in such a way that the compiler cannot prove that the variable does not need to be in memory (may induce live range splitting so the variable is only actually in memory temporarily).
Most likely none of the above apply (the last item definitely does not apply, the address is not taken) so we should expect cPtr
to spend its entire lifetime in registers.
Testing it out on clang targeting x64 we might get code like this:
main: # @main
push rbx
mov edi, 23
call malloc
mov rbx, rax
; at this point, rbx roughly corresponds to cPtr
; it's also still in rax but rax is overwritten by the next operation
movabs rax, 32777976875610985 ; btw this weird number is a piece of string
mov qword ptr [rbx + 15], rax
movups xmm0, xmmword ptr [rip + .L.str]
movups xmmword ptr [rbx], xmm0
; rbx (cPtr) is copied to rdi in order to give it to puts as argument
mov rdi, rbx
call puts
mov rdi, rbx
call free
xor eax, eax
pop rbx
ret
.L.str:
.asciz "Good luck on this test"
Targeting MIPS or ARM or PowerPC with eg GCC shows a similar pattern of cPtr
not being on the stack but in a register (or several registers, depending on how you count), though of course the code looks pretty different.
A fun detail of the code above is that while the entire string does appear in a data segment (rodata), a piece of it also appears in the code segment as the immediate operand of that movabs
.
add a comment |
It's actually a bit of a leading question, because it presumes that everything will be in memory.
Local variables, as well as temporary values without a name, are only placed on the stack if necessary. There are different reasons why that might be necessary, for example:
- The compiler is dumb or made to act dumb by compiling at the lowest possible optimization level.
- The target machine has an odd architecture without (or very few) registers (rare).
- There are too many local variables and temporary values live simultaneously to fit them all into registers at that point in the program, so some of them get "spilled". Being spilled is not a property of a variable exactly, but rather of a specific live range. In some sense a variable can therefore move around (if it has multiple associated live ranges and they get allocated differently) and even be in multiple places simultaneously (depending on how you count temporary copies, or unambiguously when loop unrolling is involved).
- The address of the local variable is taken and used in such a way that the compiler cannot prove that the variable does not need to be in memory (may induce live range splitting so the variable is only actually in memory temporarily).
Most likely none of the above apply (the last item definitely does not apply, the address is not taken) so we should expect cPtr
to spend its entire lifetime in registers.
Testing it out on clang targeting x64 we might get code like this:
main: # @main
push rbx
mov edi, 23
call malloc
mov rbx, rax
; at this point, rbx roughly corresponds to cPtr
; it's also still in rax but rax is overwritten by the next operation
movabs rax, 32777976875610985 ; btw this weird number is a piece of string
mov qword ptr [rbx + 15], rax
movups xmm0, xmmword ptr [rip + .L.str]
movups xmmword ptr [rbx], xmm0
; rbx (cPtr) is copied to rdi in order to give it to puts as argument
mov rdi, rbx
call puts
mov rdi, rbx
call free
xor eax, eax
pop rbx
ret
.L.str:
.asciz "Good luck on this test"
Targeting MIPS or ARM or PowerPC with eg GCC shows a similar pattern of cPtr
not being on the stack but in a register (or several registers, depending on how you count), though of course the code looks pretty different.
A fun detail of the code above is that while the entire string does appear in a data segment (rodata), a piece of it also appears in the code segment as the immediate operand of that movabs
.
add a comment |
It's actually a bit of a leading question, because it presumes that everything will be in memory.
Local variables, as well as temporary values without a name, are only placed on the stack if necessary. There are different reasons why that might be necessary, for example:
- The compiler is dumb or made to act dumb by compiling at the lowest possible optimization level.
- The target machine has an odd architecture without (or very few) registers (rare).
- There are too many local variables and temporary values live simultaneously to fit them all into registers at that point in the program, so some of them get "spilled". Being spilled is not a property of a variable exactly, but rather of a specific live range. In some sense a variable can therefore move around (if it has multiple associated live ranges and they get allocated differently) and even be in multiple places simultaneously (depending on how you count temporary copies, or unambiguously when loop unrolling is involved).
- The address of the local variable is taken and used in such a way that the compiler cannot prove that the variable does not need to be in memory (may induce live range splitting so the variable is only actually in memory temporarily).
Most likely none of the above apply (the last item definitely does not apply, the address is not taken) so we should expect cPtr
to spend its entire lifetime in registers.
Testing it out on clang targeting x64 we might get code like this:
main: # @main
push rbx
mov edi, 23
call malloc
mov rbx, rax
; at this point, rbx roughly corresponds to cPtr
; it's also still in rax but rax is overwritten by the next operation
movabs rax, 32777976875610985 ; btw this weird number is a piece of string
mov qword ptr [rbx + 15], rax
movups xmm0, xmmword ptr [rip + .L.str]
movups xmmword ptr [rbx], xmm0
; rbx (cPtr) is copied to rdi in order to give it to puts as argument
mov rdi, rbx
call puts
mov rdi, rbx
call free
xor eax, eax
pop rbx
ret
.L.str:
.asciz "Good luck on this test"
Targeting MIPS or ARM or PowerPC with eg GCC shows a similar pattern of cPtr
not being on the stack but in a register (or several registers, depending on how you count), though of course the code looks pretty different.
A fun detail of the code above is that while the entire string does appear in a data segment (rodata), a piece of it also appears in the code segment as the immediate operand of that movabs
.
It's actually a bit of a leading question, because it presumes that everything will be in memory.
Local variables, as well as temporary values without a name, are only placed on the stack if necessary. There are different reasons why that might be necessary, for example:
- The compiler is dumb or made to act dumb by compiling at the lowest possible optimization level.
- The target machine has an odd architecture without (or very few) registers (rare).
- There are too many local variables and temporary values live simultaneously to fit them all into registers at that point in the program, so some of them get "spilled". Being spilled is not a property of a variable exactly, but rather of a specific live range. In some sense a variable can therefore move around (if it has multiple associated live ranges and they get allocated differently) and even be in multiple places simultaneously (depending on how you count temporary copies, or unambiguously when loop unrolling is involved).
- The address of the local variable is taken and used in such a way that the compiler cannot prove that the variable does not need to be in memory (may induce live range splitting so the variable is only actually in memory temporarily).
Most likely none of the above apply (the last item definitely does not apply, the address is not taken) so we should expect cPtr
to spend its entire lifetime in registers.
Testing it out on clang targeting x64 we might get code like this:
main: # @main
push rbx
mov edi, 23
call malloc
mov rbx, rax
; at this point, rbx roughly corresponds to cPtr
; it's also still in rax but rax is overwritten by the next operation
movabs rax, 32777976875610985 ; btw this weird number is a piece of string
mov qword ptr [rbx + 15], rax
movups xmm0, xmmword ptr [rip + .L.str]
movups xmmword ptr [rbx], xmm0
; rbx (cPtr) is copied to rdi in order to give it to puts as argument
mov rdi, rbx
call puts
mov rdi, rbx
call free
xor eax, eax
pop rbx
ret
.L.str:
.asciz "Good luck on this test"
Targeting MIPS or ARM or PowerPC with eg GCC shows a similar pattern of cPtr
not being on the stack but in a register (or several registers, depending on how you count), though of course the code looks pretty different.
A fun detail of the code above is that while the entire string does appear in a data segment (rodata), a piece of it also appears in the code segment as the immediate operand of that movabs
.
edited Nov 20 at 0:29
answered Nov 20 at 0:24
harold
41.2k356108
41.2k356108
add a comment |
add a comment |
- Stack
- Heap
- Data
- Shared library
That is how i would answer this question.
char * cPtr = NULL;
declares a char * on the stack and assigns it to point to NULL, In your instance the malloc() assignes it to point to heap memory but the cPtr variable itself is on the stack.Malloc allocates heap memory.
The TEXT string is in data segment, and sizeof ("TEXT STRING") will be handled as an operator to an address in data segment. I assume your question means the "code for the arguments to malloc"
Your code doesnt define the function malloc so whatever its doing must be happening due to one of the libraries you #included.
I may be wrong on one or more of these answers but that is my understanding. If someone can tell me where I am wrong ill correct the answer.
Thanks for the down-vote without any comment! It really helps me fix my answer.
– Bwebb
Nov 20 at 1:18
1
Read other answers to understand what’s wrong. But in general, it’s misguided to talk about what a compiler might do: have you actually looked at what it does, or are you making stuff up? Have you ever checked how well you can predict what a compiler does by writing code, predicting, and checking actual output? You should well get the compiler and look at its output. It’s not magic. Godbolt compiler explorer exists for a reason: so that people don’t have to guess, as such guesses are incorrect more often than not.
– Kuba Ober
Nov 20 at 3:07
add a comment |
- Stack
- Heap
- Data
- Shared library
That is how i would answer this question.
char * cPtr = NULL;
declares a char * on the stack and assigns it to point to NULL, In your instance the malloc() assignes it to point to heap memory but the cPtr variable itself is on the stack.Malloc allocates heap memory.
The TEXT string is in data segment, and sizeof ("TEXT STRING") will be handled as an operator to an address in data segment. I assume your question means the "code for the arguments to malloc"
Your code doesnt define the function malloc so whatever its doing must be happening due to one of the libraries you #included.
I may be wrong on one or more of these answers but that is my understanding. If someone can tell me where I am wrong ill correct the answer.
Thanks for the down-vote without any comment! It really helps me fix my answer.
– Bwebb
Nov 20 at 1:18
1
Read other answers to understand what’s wrong. But in general, it’s misguided to talk about what a compiler might do: have you actually looked at what it does, or are you making stuff up? Have you ever checked how well you can predict what a compiler does by writing code, predicting, and checking actual output? You should well get the compiler and look at its output. It’s not magic. Godbolt compiler explorer exists for a reason: so that people don’t have to guess, as such guesses are incorrect more often than not.
– Kuba Ober
Nov 20 at 3:07
add a comment |
- Stack
- Heap
- Data
- Shared library
That is how i would answer this question.
char * cPtr = NULL;
declares a char * on the stack and assigns it to point to NULL, In your instance the malloc() assignes it to point to heap memory but the cPtr variable itself is on the stack.Malloc allocates heap memory.
The TEXT string is in data segment, and sizeof ("TEXT STRING") will be handled as an operator to an address in data segment. I assume your question means the "code for the arguments to malloc"
Your code doesnt define the function malloc so whatever its doing must be happening due to one of the libraries you #included.
I may be wrong on one or more of these answers but that is my understanding. If someone can tell me where I am wrong ill correct the answer.
- Stack
- Heap
- Data
- Shared library
That is how i would answer this question.
char * cPtr = NULL;
declares a char * on the stack and assigns it to point to NULL, In your instance the malloc() assignes it to point to heap memory but the cPtr variable itself is on the stack.Malloc allocates heap memory.
The TEXT string is in data segment, and sizeof ("TEXT STRING") will be handled as an operator to an address in data segment. I assume your question means the "code for the arguments to malloc"
Your code doesnt define the function malloc so whatever its doing must be happening due to one of the libraries you #included.
I may be wrong on one or more of these answers but that is my understanding. If someone can tell me where I am wrong ill correct the answer.
answered Nov 19 at 23:42
Bwebb
3358
3358
Thanks for the down-vote without any comment! It really helps me fix my answer.
– Bwebb
Nov 20 at 1:18
1
Read other answers to understand what’s wrong. But in general, it’s misguided to talk about what a compiler might do: have you actually looked at what it does, or are you making stuff up? Have you ever checked how well you can predict what a compiler does by writing code, predicting, and checking actual output? You should well get the compiler and look at its output. It’s not magic. Godbolt compiler explorer exists for a reason: so that people don’t have to guess, as such guesses are incorrect more often than not.
– Kuba Ober
Nov 20 at 3:07
add a comment |
Thanks for the down-vote without any comment! It really helps me fix my answer.
– Bwebb
Nov 20 at 1:18
1
Read other answers to understand what’s wrong. But in general, it’s misguided to talk about what a compiler might do: have you actually looked at what it does, or are you making stuff up? Have you ever checked how well you can predict what a compiler does by writing code, predicting, and checking actual output? You should well get the compiler and look at its output. It’s not magic. Godbolt compiler explorer exists for a reason: so that people don’t have to guess, as such guesses are incorrect more often than not.
– Kuba Ober
Nov 20 at 3:07
Thanks for the down-vote without any comment! It really helps me fix my answer.
– Bwebb
Nov 20 at 1:18
Thanks for the down-vote without any comment! It really helps me fix my answer.
– Bwebb
Nov 20 at 1:18
1
1
Read other answers to understand what’s wrong. But in general, it’s misguided to talk about what a compiler might do: have you actually looked at what it does, or are you making stuff up? Have you ever checked how well you can predict what a compiler does by writing code, predicting, and checking actual output? You should well get the compiler and look at its output. It’s not magic. Godbolt compiler explorer exists for a reason: so that people don’t have to guess, as such guesses are incorrect more often than not.
– Kuba Ober
Nov 20 at 3:07
Read other answers to understand what’s wrong. But in general, it’s misguided to talk about what a compiler might do: have you actually looked at what it does, or are you making stuff up? Have you ever checked how well you can predict what a compiler does by writing code, predicting, and checking actual output? You should well get the compiler and look at its output. It’s not magic. Godbolt compiler explorer exists for a reason: so that people don’t have to guess, as such guesses are incorrect more often than not.
– Kuba Ober
Nov 20 at 3:07
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53384055%2fwhere-the-following-objects-are-stored-in-memory%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
I don't believe 3. is correct. The
TEXT
macro would be stored in the data segment though.– Patrick Roberts
Nov 19 at 23:24
1
Some systems don't have a heap or a stack
– M.M
Nov 19 at 23:25
1
An answer to this question would be platform specific.
– VTT
Nov 19 at 23:29
2
I think 1 and 2 are backwards.
char *cPtr
is on the stack. "The address to whichcPtr
points" sounds like they're asking about the memory allocated bymalloc
; that's on the heap.– Schwern
Nov 19 at 23:30
1
Nothing in the C/C++ standard mandates that anything must end on the stack, or even that the thing known as “stack” exists. You need to look in the assembly output to see what happens, as all of it is implementation-defined. I.e. the question should also state what exact compiler is spoken about, and what compiler options.
– Kuba Ober
Nov 20 at 3:04