This is not a "static memory allocation". Your array k
is a Variable Length Array (VLA), which means that memory for this array is allocated at run time. The size will be determined by the run-time value of n
.
The language specification does not dictate any specific allocation mechanism, but in a typical implementation your k
will usually end up being a simple int *
pointer with the actual memory block being allocated on the stack at run time.
For a VLA sizeof
operator is evaluated at run time as well, which is why you obtain the correct value from it in your experiment. Just use %zu
(not %ld
) to print values of type size_t
.
The primary purpose of malloc
(and other dynamic memory allocation functions) is to override the scope-based lifetime rules, which apply to local objects. I.e. memory allocated with malloc
remains allocated "forever", or until you explicitly deallocate it with free
. Memory allocated with malloc
does not get automatically deallocated at the end of the block.
VLA, as in your example, does not provide this "scope-defeating" functionality. Your array k
still obeys regular scope-based lifetime rules: its lifetime ends at the end of the block. For this reason, in general case, VLA cannot possibly replace malloc
and other dynamic memory allocation functions.
But in specific cases when you don't need to "defeat scope" and just use malloc
to allocate a run-time sized array, VLA might indeed be seen as a replacement for malloc
. Just keep in mind, again, that VLAs are typically allocated on the stack and allocating large chunks of memory on the stack to this day remains a rather questionable programming practice.
与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…