alloca的一个缺陷是longjmp将它倒带。

也就是说，如果你用setjmp保存一个上下文，然后分配一些内存，然后longjmp到上下文，你可能会失去分配的内存。堆栈指针回到原来的位置，因此内存不再保留;如果你调用一个函数或执行另一个分配，你将破坏原来的分配。

为了澄清，我在这里特别提到的是一种情况，即longjmp不返回发生分配的函数!相反，函数使用setjmp保存上下文;然后使用alloca分配内存，最后在该上下文中执行longjmp。该函数的分配内存没有全部释放;就是从setjmp开始分配的所有内存。当然，我说的是观察到的行为;据我所知，任何分配都没有这样的要求。

The focus in the documentation is usually on the concept that alloca memory is associated with a function activation, not with any block; that multiple invocations of alloca just grab more stack memory which is all released when the function terminates. Not so; the memory is actually associated with the procedure context. When the context is restored with longjmp, so is the prior alloca state. It's a consequence of the stack pointer register itself being used for allocation, and also (necessarily) saved and restored in the jmp_buf.

顺便说一句，如果这样工作的话，这提供了一种合理的机制来故意释放使用alloca分配的内存。

我曾经遇到过这种情况，这是一个bug的根本原因。

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 :)

正如在这篇新闻组帖子中提到的，有几个原因可以解释为什么使用alloca是困难和危险的:

并非所有编译器都支持alloca。 一些编译器对alloca的预期行为有不同的解释，因此即使在支持它的编译器之间也不能保证可移植性。 一些实现存在bug。

在我看来，alloca()在可用的情况下，应该仅以受约束的方式使用。就像“goto”的使用一样，相当多理智的人不仅对alloca()的使用非常反感，而且对它的存在也非常反感。

对于嵌入式使用，其中堆栈大小是已知的，并且可以通过对分配大小的约定和分析施加限制，并且编译器不能升级到支持C99+，使用alloca()是很好的，而且我已经知道使用它。

When available, VLAs may have some advantages over alloca(): The compiler can generate stack limit checks that will catch out-of-bounds access when array style access is used (I don't know if any compilers do this, but it can be done), and analysis of the code can determine whether the array access expressions are properly bounded. Note that, in some programming environments, such as automotive, medical equipment, and avionics, this analysis has to be done even for fixed size arrays, both automatic (on the stack) and static allocation (global or local).

在堆栈上存储数据和返回地址/帧指针的架构上(据我所知，这就是它们的全部)，任何堆栈分配变量都可能是危险的，因为变量的地址可以被取走，未检查的输入值可能会允许各种各样的恶作剧。

在嵌入式领域，可移植性不是一个太大的问题，但是它是反对在严格控制的环境之外使用alloca()的一个很好的理由。

在嵌入式空间之外，我主要在日志记录和格式化函数中使用alloca()以提高效率，并在非递归词法扫描器中使用，其中临时结构(使用alloca()在标记化和分类期间创建，然后在函数返回之前填充持久对象(通过malloc()分配)。对较小的临时结构使用alloca()可以在分配持久对象时极大地减少碎片。

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。

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
    }
}