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)。

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。

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。

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。

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。