我想没有人提到过这一点:在函数中使用alloca会阻碍或禁用一些本来可以应用在函数中的优化，因为编译器无法知道函数的堆栈帧的大小。

例如，C编译器常见的优化是在函数中消除帧指针的使用，而是相对于堆栈指针进行帧访问;所以还有一种通用寄存器。但如果在函数内部调用alloca，则sp和fp之间的差异对于函数的一部分是未知的，因此无法进行此优化。

考虑到alloca的使用很少，而且它作为标准函数的不光彩地位，编译器设计人员很可能会禁用任何可能导致alloca出现问题的优化，如果要使它与alloca一起工作需要付出更多的努力的话。

更新: 由于变长局部数组已经添加到C语言中，并且由于这些向编译器提出了与alloca非常相似的代码生成问题，我看到“使用的罕见性和阴暗状态”不适用于底层机制;但是我仍然怀疑使用alloca或VLA会损害使用它们的函数中的代码生成。我欢迎来自编译器设计人员的任何反馈。

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。

实际上，alloca并不保证使用堆栈。 事实上，gcc-2.95的alloca实现使用malloc本身从堆中分配内存。此外，这个实现是有bug的，它可能会导致内存泄漏和一些意想不到的行为，如果你在一个块内调用它进一步使用goto。并不是说您永远都不应该使用它，但有时alloca会导致比它从me中释放更多的开销。

我认为没有人提到过这一点，但是alloca也有一些严重的安全问题，不一定是malloc所存在的(尽管这些问题也会出现在任何基于堆栈的数组中，无论是否是动态的)。由于内存是在堆栈上分配的，缓冲区溢出/下溢的后果比仅仅使用malloc要严重得多。

In particular, the return address for a function is stored on the stack. If this value gets corrupted, your code could be made to go to any executable region of memory. Compilers go to great lengths to make this difficult (in particular by randomizing address layout). However, this is clearly worse than just a stack overflow since the best case is a SEGFAULT if the return value is corrupted, but it could also start executing a random piece of memory or in the worst case some region of memory which compromises your program's security.

其他答案都是正确的。但是，如果使用alloca()要分配的对象相当小，我认为这是一种比使用malloc()或其他方法更快、更方便的好技术。

换句话说，alloca(0x00ffffff)是危险的，可能会导致溢出，就像char hugeArray[0x00ffffff];是多少。小心谨慎，通情达理，你会没事的。

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
    }
}