Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!cs.umn.edu!kksys!wd0gol!newave!john
From: john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: memory management between functions
Message-ID: <794@newave.UUCP>
Date: 29 Apr 91 23:09:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: newave.794
References: <8504@umd5.umd.edu>
Reply-To: john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III)
Distribution: na
Organization: NeWave Communications Ltd, Eden Prairie, MN
Lines: 73

In article <8504@umd5.umd.edu> jjk@astro.umde.edu (Jim Klavetter) writes:
> A few weeks ago I asked about where to allocate memory, in main()
> or in the function.

> I wanted to make the functions completely autonomous, so this is
> what I did (in some c-like metacode)

Stand back folks....

> [malloc c array here]
>
> for(i=0; i<n; i++)
>	c[i]=a[i]-b[i];
> free(c);
> return(c);
> }

Don't ever try to use memory that has been freed.  You never know
what the operating system is doing behind your back, or what other
programs running on your machine might be doing.  You would be
better off not freeing anything if you system frees memory for you
on exit, but this is not a good habit either.

Also, be careful passing back a value that was a local value in
your procedure.  You do not have this problem in your code, but
watch out for something like return(&c).  The address of c is an
address on the stack, and c might be wiped out as soon as the
procedure returns.

> In my first posting, someone offered the advice that the call to
> subtract should be:
> double *subtract(a, b, n, result)

> where result is an "empty" array that will be used to return the
> subtracted vector.  I think this would solve the problem, but I am
> reluctant to use this idea because of the duplication (as well as
> the fortranish look).  Is this NECESSARY duplication that I must
> live with?

There is a benefit to passing in the result.  You can have a pre-allocated
scratch vector or two laying around.  This will allow you to call
subtract without having to allocate memory on each call.  Also, you
can write a seperate vector allocation routine that would worry about
the house keeping details associated with memory management (like keeping
a list of pointer to free later on and worring about what to do if
the alloc fails).

By the way, once you get this working, think about optimizing your
subtract loop a bit.  I have seen some C compilers that generate
much better code for a loop like:

	aP = &( a[ 0 ] );
	bP = &( b[ 0 ] );
	cP = &( c[ 0 ] );

	for ( i = 0; i < n; i++ )
		*cP++ = *aP++ - *bP++;

rather than:

	for ( i = 0; i < n; i++ )
		c[ i ] = a[ i ] - b[i ];

Play with it in one procedure before going hog wild.  The Metaware
compiler for 68K UNIX generates the same code for both, in which case
the array notation is easier to understand a first glance.

-john-

-- 
=============================================================================
John A. Weeks III               (612) 942-6969             john@newave.mn.org
NeWave Communications                       ...uunet!tcnet!wd0gol!newave!john