这个问题可能听起来相当简单，但这是我与另一位开发人员的争论。
我小心地在我可以的地方进行堆栈分配，而不是堆分配。他和我说话，看着我的肩膀，并评论说，这是没有必要的，因为他们的表现是一样的。
在我的印象中，增加堆栈是一个常数时间，而堆分配的性能取决于当前堆的复杂性，包括分配(找到合适大小的孔)和反分配(缩小孔以减少碎片，如果我没有弄错的话，许多标准库实现在删除过程中需要时间来做这件事)。
在我看来，这可能非常依赖于编译器。在这个项目中，我特别使用了一个用于PPC架构的Metrowerks编译器。对这种组合的深入了解将是最有帮助的，但一般来说，对于GCC和msvc++，情况如何?堆分配不如堆栈分配高效吗?没有区别吗?还是差异如此之小以至于变成了毫无意义的微观优化。
当前回答
class Foo {
public:
Foo(int a) {
}
}
int func() {
int a1, a2;
std::cin >> a1;
std::cin >> a2;
Foo f1(a1);
__asm push a1;
__asm lea ecx, [this];
__asm call Foo::Foo(int);
Foo* f2 = new Foo(a2);
__asm push sizeof(Foo);
__asm call operator new;//there's a lot instruction here(depends on system)
__asm push a2;
__asm call Foo::Foo(int);
delete f2;
}
It would be like this in asm. When you're in func, the f1 and pointer f2 has been allocated on stack (automated storage). And by the way, Foo f1(a1) has no instruction effects on stack pointer (esp),It has been allocated, if func wants get the member f1, it's instruction is something like this: lea ecx [ebp+f1], call Foo::SomeFunc(). Another thing the stack allocate may make someone think the memory is something like FIFO, the FIFO just happened when you go into some function, if you are in the function and allocate something like int i = 0, there no push happened.
其他回答
您可以为特定大小的对象编写一个非常高性能的特殊堆分配器。但是，一般的堆分配器性能不是特别好。
我也同意Torbjörn Gyllebring关于对象的预期生命期的观点。好点!
尽管堆分配器可以简单地使用基于堆栈的分配技术，但堆栈分配几乎总是与堆分配一样快或更快。
However, there are larger issues when dealing with the overall performance of stack vs. heap based allocation (or in slightly better terms, local vs. external allocation). Usually, heap (external) allocation is slow because it is dealing with many different kinds of allocations and allocation patterns. Reducing the scope of the allocator you are using (making it local to the algorithm/code) will tend to increase performance without any major changes. Adding better structure to your allocation patterns, for example, forcing a LIFO ordering on allocation and deallocation pairs can also improve your allocator's performance by using the allocator in a simpler and more structured way. Or, you can use or write an allocator tuned for your particular allocation pattern; most programs allocate a few discrete sizes frequently, so a heap that is based on a lookaside buffer of a few fixed (preferably known) sizes will perform extremely well. Windows uses its low-fragmentation-heap for this very reason.
另一方面，如果线程太多，在32位内存范围上基于堆栈的分配也充满了危险。堆栈需要一个连续的内存范围，因此线程越多，就需要更多的虚拟地址空间来让它们在没有堆栈溢出的情况下运行。对于64位的程序来说，这(目前)不是问题，但是对于具有大量线程的长时间运行的程序来说，它肯定会造成严重破坏。由于碎片化而导致虚拟地址空间耗尽总是一件令人痛苦的事情。
通常，堆栈分配只是由堆栈指针寄存器中的减法组成。这比搜索堆快多了。
Sometimes stack allocation requires adding a page(s) of virtual memory. Adding a new page of zeroed memory doesn't require reading a page from disk, so usually this is still going to be tons faster than searching a heap (especially if part of the heap was paged out too). In a rare situation, and you could construct such an example, enough space just happens to be available in part of the heap which is already in RAM, but allocating a new page for the stack has to wait for some other page to get written out to disk. In that rare situation, the heap is faster.
可能堆分配和堆栈分配的最大问题是，堆分配在一般情况下是一个无界操作，因此在有时间问题的地方不能使用它。
对于时间不是问题的其他应用程序，它可能没有那么重要，但如果您分配了很多堆，这将影响执行速度。总是尝试将堆栈用于短期和经常分配的内存(例如在循环中)，并尽可能长时间地在应用程序启动期间进行堆分配。
堆栈的容量有限，而堆则不是。一个进程或线程的典型堆栈大约是8K。一旦分配，就不能更改大小。
堆栈变量遵循作用域规则，而堆变量则不遵循。如果你的指令指针超出了一个函数，所有与该函数相关的新变量都会消失。
最重要的是，您无法预先预测整个函数调用链。因此，仅200字节的分配就可能导致堆栈溢出。如果您正在编写一个库，而不是应用程序，这一点尤其重要。
