← Back to context

Comment by shakna

1 day ago

In C, malloc and free used to often be macros.

As they're freely replaceable through loading, and designed for that, I would strongly suggest that are among the most magical areas of the C standard.

We get a whole section for those in the standard: 7.24.3 Memory management functions

Hell, malloc is allowed to return you _less than you asked for_:

> The pointer returned if the allocation succeeds is suitably aligned so that it may be assigned to a pointer to any type of object with a fundamental alignment requirement and size less than or equal to the size requested

I read the text as saying the object size can be less or equal to returned memory size. Anyway, section 7 is library. As you say, replacing through loading is a common thing to do — surely compiler is not free to simply elide external library function at will? This is not C++ after all, it must be sensible

  • If the function is equivalent to a no-op, and not explicitly marked as volatile for side-effects, it absolutely can elide it. If there is a side-effect in hardware or wider systems like the OS, then it must be marked as volatile. If the code is just code, then a function call that does effectively nothing, will probably become nothing.

    That was one of the first optimisations we had, back with Fortran and COBOL. Before C existed - and as B started life as a stripped down Fortran compiler, the history carried through.

    The K&R book describes the buddy system for malloc, and how its design makes it suitable for compiler optimisations - including ignoring a write to a pointer that does nothing, because the pointer will no longer be valid.

    • You are literally scaring me now. I'd understand such things being done when statically linking or running JIT, but for "normal" program which function implementation malloc() will link against is not known during compilation. How can compiler go, like, "eh, I'll assume free(malloc(x)) is NOP and drop it" and not break most existing code?

      1 reply →