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
    }
}

进程只有有限的堆栈空间可用——远远小于malloc()可用的内存量。

通过使用alloca()，您将极大地增加获得Stack Overflow错误的机会(如果幸运的话，或者如果运气不好，则会出现莫名其妙的崩溃)。

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。

在我看来，分配和变长数组的最大风险是，如果分配的大小出乎意料地大，它可能会以非常危险的方式失败。

堆栈上的分配通常没有检入用户代码。

现代操作系统通常会在*下面放置一个保护页面，以检测堆栈溢出。当堆栈溢出时，内核可能会扩展堆栈或杀死进程。Linux在2017年将这个保护区域扩展到比页面大得多，但它的大小仍然是有限的。

因此，作为一条规则，在使用之前的分配之前，最好避免在堆栈上分配超过一个页面。使用分配或可变长度数组，很容易让攻击者在堆栈上进行任意大小分配，从而跳过任何保护页并访问任意内存。

*在当今最广泛的系统中，堆栈向下增长。

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。

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。