我遇到的最令人难忘的错误之一是与一个使用alloca的内联函数有关。它在程序执行的随机点表现为堆栈溢出(因为它在堆栈上分配)。

在头文件中:

void DoSomething() {
   wchar_t* pStr = alloca(100);
   //......
}

在实现文件中:

void Process() {
   for (i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) {
     DoSomething();
   }
}

因此，发生的事情是编译器内联DoSomething函数，所有的堆栈分配都发生在Process()函数内部，从而使堆栈膨胀。在我的辩护中(我不是发现这个问题的人;当我无法修复它时，我不得不去和一个高级开发人员哭)，它不是直接的分配，它是ATL字符串转换宏之一。

所以教训是-不要在你认为可能内联的函数中使用alloca。

alloca并不比变长数组(VLA)更糟糕，但它比在堆上分配更危险。

在x86上(最常见的是在ARM上)，堆栈向下增长，这带来了一定的风险:如果你不小心写超出了用alloca分配的块(例如由于缓冲区溢出)，那么你将覆盖你的函数的返回地址，因为它位于堆栈的“上面”，即在你分配的块之后。

这样做的后果是双重的:

程序将崩溃的壮观，它将不可能告诉为什么或哪里崩溃(堆栈将最有可能unwind到一个随机地址，由于覆盖的帧指针)。 它使缓冲区溢出的危险增加了许多倍，因为恶意用户可以制作一个特殊的有效负载，将其放在堆栈上，因此最终可以执行。

相反，如果你在堆上写超过一个块，你“只是”得到堆损坏。程序可能会意外终止，但会正确地展开堆栈，从而减少恶意代码执行的机会。

Alloca()很好，很有效……但它也被深深打破了。

broken scope behavior (function scope instead of block scope) use inconsistant with malloc (alloca()-ted pointer shouldn't be freed, henceforth you have to track where you pointers are coming from to free() only those you got with malloc()) bad behavior when you also use inlining (scope sometimes goes to the caller function depending if callee is inlined or not). no stack boundary check undefined behavior in case of failure (does not return NULL like malloc... and what does failure means as it does not check stack boundaries anyway...) not ansi standard

在大多数情况下，您可以使用局部变量和主要大小来替换它。如果它用于大型对象，将它们放在堆上通常是一个更安全的想法。

如果你真的需要它，你可以使用VLA(在c++中没有VLA，太糟糕了)。在作用域行为和一致性方面，它们比alloca()要好得多。在我看来，VLA是一种正确的分配。

当然，使用所需空间的主要部分的本地结构或数组仍然更好，如果没有这样的主要堆分配，则使用普通malloc()可能是明智的。 我没有看到你真的真的需要alloca()或VLA的用例。

alloca() is very useful if you can't use a standard local variable because its size would need to be determined at runtime and you can absolutely guarantee that the pointer you get from alloca() will NEVER be used after this function returns. You can be fairly safe if you do not return the pointer, or anything that contains it. do not store the pointer in any structure allocated on the heap do not let any other thread use the pointer The real danger comes from the chance that someone else will violate these conditions sometime later. With that in mind it's great for passing buffers to functions that format text into them :)

这里的大多数回答都忽略了一点:使用_alloca()可能比仅仅在堆栈中存储大对象更糟糕，这是有原因的。

自动存储和_alloca()之间的主要区别是，后者有一个额外的(严重的)问题:分配的块不受编译器控制，因此编译器无法优化或回收它。

比较:

while (condition) {
    char buffer[0x100]; // Chill.
    /* ... */
}

:

while (condition) {
    char* buffer = _alloca(0x100); // Bad!
    /* ... */
}

后者的问题应该是显而易见的。

仍然不鼓励使用分配，为什么?

我没有看到这样的共识。很多强大的专业人士;一些缺点:

C99 provides variable length arrays, which would often be used preferentially as the notation's more consistent with fixed-length arrays and intuitive overall many systems have less overall memory/address-space available for the stack than they do for the heap, which makes the program slightly more susceptible to memory exhaustion (through stack overflow): this may be seen as a good or a bad thing - one of the reasons the stack doesn't automatically grow the way heap does is to prevent out-of-control programs from having as much adverse impact on the entire machine when used in a more local scope (such as a while or for loop) or in several scopes, the memory accumulates per iteration/scope and is not released until the function exits: this contrasts with normal variables defined in the scope of a control structure (e.g. for {int i = 0; i < 2; ++i) { X } would accumulate alloca-ed memory requested at X, but memory for a fixed-sized array would be recycled per iteration). modern compilers typically do not inline functions that call alloca, but if you force them then the alloca will happen in the callers' context (i.e. the stack won't be released until the caller returns) a long time ago alloca transitioned from a non-portable feature/hack to a Standardised extension, but some negative perception may persist the lifetime is bound to the function scope, which may or may not suit the programmer better than malloc's explicit control having to use malloc encourages thinking about the deallocation - if that's managed through a wrapper function (e.g. WonderfulObject_DestructorFree(ptr)), then the function provides a point for implementation clean up operations (like closing file descriptors, freeing internal pointers or doing some logging) without explicit changes to client code: sometimes it's a nice model to adopt consistently in this pseudo-OO style of programming, it's natural to want something like WonderfulObject* p = WonderfulObject_AllocConstructor(); - that's possible when the "constructor" is a function returning malloc-ed memory (as the memory remains allocated after the function returns the value to be stored in p), but not if the "constructor" uses alloca a macro version of WonderfulObject_AllocConstructor could achieve this, but "macros are evil" in that they can conflict with each other and non-macro code and create unintended substitutions and consequent difficult-to-diagnose problems missing free operations can be detected by ValGrind, Purify etc. but missing "destructor" calls can't always be detected at all - one very tenuous benefit in terms of enforcement of intended usage; some alloca() implementations (such as GCC's) use an inlined macro for alloca(), so runtime substitution of a memory-usage diagnostic library isn't possible the way it is for malloc/realloc/free (e.g. electric fence) some implementations have subtle issues: for example, from the Linux manpage:

在许多系统中，alloca()不能在函数调用的参数列表中使用，因为由alloca()保留的堆栈空间将出现在堆栈中用于函数参数的空间中间。

我知道这个问题被标记为C，但作为一名c++程序员，我认为我应该使用c++来说明alloca的潜在效用:下面的代码(以及这里的ideone)创建了一个向量，跟踪不同大小的多态类型，这些类型是堆栈分配的(生命期与函数返回绑定)，而不是堆分配的。

#include <alloca.h>
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>

struct Base
{
    virtual ~Base() { }
    virtual int to_int() const = 0;
};

struct Integer : Base
{
    Integer(int n) : n_(n) { }
    int to_int() const { return n_; }
    int n_;
};

struct Double : Base
{
    Double(double n) : n_(n) { }
    int to_int() const { return -n_; }
    double n_;
};

inline Base* factory(double d) __attribute__((always_inline));

inline Base* factory(double d)
{
    if ((double)(int)d != d)
        return new (alloca(sizeof(Double))) Double(d);
    else
        return new (alloca(sizeof(Integer))) Integer(d);
}

int main()
{
    std::vector<Base*> numbers;
    numbers.push_back(factory(29.3));
    numbers.push_back(factory(29));
    numbers.push_back(factory(7.1));
    numbers.push_back(factory(2));
    numbers.push_back(factory(231.0));
    for (std::vector<Base*>::const_iterator i = numbers.begin();
         i != numbers.end(); ++i)
    {
        std::cout << *i << ' ' << (*i)->to_int() << '\n';
        (*i)->~Base();   // optionally / else Undefined Behaviour iff the
                         // program depends on side effects of destructor
    }
}