Remark that the considerations are typically not about speed and performance when choosing stack versus heap allocation. The stack acts like a stack, which means it is well suited for pushing blocks and popping them again, last in, first out. Execution of procedures is also stack-like, last procedure entered is first to be exited. In most programming languages, all the variables needed in a procedure will only be visible during the procedure's execution, thus they are pushed upon entering a procedure and popped off the stack upon exit or return.

现在来看一个不能使用堆栈的例子:

Proc P
{
  pointer x;
  Proc S
  {
    pointer y;
    y = allocate_some_data();
    x = y;
  }
}

If you allocate some memory in procedure S and put it on the stack and then exit S, the allocated data will be popped off the stack. But the variable x in P also pointed to that data, so x is now pointing to some place underneath the stack pointer (assume stack grows downwards) with an unknown content. The content might still be there if the stack pointer is just moved up without clearing the data beneath it, but if you start allocating new data on the stack, the pointer x might actually point to that new data instead.

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。

不要做过早的假设，因为其他应用程序代码和使用可能会影响您的功能。因此，孤立地看待函数是没有用的。

如果你是认真的应用程序，那么VTune它或使用任何类似的分析工具，并查看热点。

糯米

我不认为堆栈分配和堆分配通常是可以互换的。我也希望它们的性能都足以用于一般用途。

我强烈推荐小件物品，哪种更适合分配范围。对于较大的项，堆可能是必要的。

在有多个线程的32位操作系统上，堆栈通常是相当有限的(尽管通常至少是几mb)，因为需要分割地址空间，迟早一个线程堆栈会碰到另一个线程堆栈。在单线程系统(至少是Linux glibc单线程)上，限制要小得多，因为堆栈可以不断增长。

在64位操作系统上，有足够的地址空间使线程堆栈相当大。

前面提到过，堆栈分配只是移动堆栈指针，即大多数架构上的一条指令。将其与堆分配中通常发生的情况进行比较。

操作系统以链表的形式维护部分空闲内存，有效负载数据由指向空闲部分起始地址的指针和空闲部分的大小组成。为了分配X字节的内存，将遍历链表，并按顺序访问每个音符，检查其大小是否至少为X。当找到大小为P >= X的部分时，将P分成大小为X和P-X的两个部分。更新链表并返回指向第一部分的指针。

如您所见，堆分配取决于许多因素，如您请求的内存大小、内存的碎片程度等等。

我想说的是，实际上GCC生成的代码(我还记得VS)不需要做堆栈分配的开销。

对以下函数表示:

  int f(int i)
  {
      if (i > 0)
      {   
          int array[1000];
      }   
  }

下面是生成的代码:

  __Z1fi:
  Leh_func_begin1:
      pushq   %rbp
  Ltmp0:
      movq    %rsp, %rbp
  Ltmp1:
      subq    $**3880**, %rsp <--- here we have the array allocated, even the if doesn't excited.
  Ltmp2:
      movl    %edi, -4(%rbp)
      movl    -8(%rbp), %eax
      addq    $3880, %rsp
      popq    %rbp
      ret 
  Leh_func_end1:

所以无论你有多少局部变量(甚至在if或switch内部)，只有3880会改变为另一个值。除非你没有局部变量，否则这条指令只需要执行。所以分配局部变量没有开销。