每个人都已经指出了堆栈溢出潜在的未定义行为，但我应该提到的是，Windows环境有一个很好的机制来捕捉这种情况，使用结构化异常(SEH)和保护页面。由于堆栈只在需要时增长，因此这些保护页驻留在未分配的区域。如果你对它们进行分配(通过溢出堆栈)，就会抛出一个异常。

您可以捕获这个SEH异常并调用_resetstkoflw来重置堆栈并继续您的快乐之路。这并不理想，但这是另一种机制，至少可以在事情发生时知道哪里出了问题。*nix可能有类似的东西，但我不知道。

我建议通过包装alloca并在内部跟踪它来限制您的最大分配大小。如果你真的很认真，你可以在函数的顶部设置一些作用域哨兵来跟踪函数作用域中的任何分配，并检查它与项目允许的最大数量是否一致。

此外，除了不允许内存泄漏之外，alloca也不会导致内存碎片，这是非常重要的。我不认为alloca是不好的做法，如果你明智地使用它，这基本上适用于所有事情。: -)

答案就在手册页中(至少在Linux上):

返回值 函数的作用是:返回一个指向对象开头的指针 分配空间。如果 分配的原因 堆栈溢出，程序行为未定义。

这并不是说它永远不应该被使用。我工作的一个OSS项目广泛使用它，只要你不滥用它(分配巨大的值)，它是好的。一旦超过了“几百字节”的标记，就应该转而使用malloc和friends。您可能仍然会遇到分配失败，但至少您会得到一些失败的指示，而不是仅仅耗尽堆栈。

每个人都已经指出了堆栈溢出潜在的未定义行为，但我应该提到的是，Windows环境有一个很好的机制来捕捉这种情况，使用结构化异常(SEH)和保护页面。由于堆栈只在需要时增长，因此这些保护页驻留在未分配的区域。如果你对它们进行分配(通过溢出堆栈)，就会抛出一个异常。

您可以捕获这个SEH异常并调用_resetstkoflw来重置堆栈并继续您的快乐之路。这并不理想，但这是另一种机制，至少可以在事情发生时知道哪里出了问题。*nix可能有类似的东西，但我不知道。

我建议通过包装alloca并在内部跟踪它来限制您的最大分配大小。如果你真的很认真，你可以在函数的顶部设置一些作用域哨兵来跟踪函数作用域中的任何分配，并检查它与项目允许的最大数量是否一致。

此外，除了不允许内存泄漏之外，alloca也不会导致内存碎片，这是非常重要的。我不认为alloca是不好的做法，如果你明智地使用它，这基本上适用于所有事情。: -)

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。

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.

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
    }
}