Is it ever OK to *not* use free() on allocated memory?
I'm studying computer engineering, and I have some electronics courses. I heard, from two of my professors (of these courses) that it is possible to avoid using the free() function (after malloc() , calloc() , etc.) because the memory spaces allocated likely won't be used again to allocate other memory. That is, for example, if you allocate 4 bytes and then release them you will have 4 bytes of space that likely won't be allocated again: you will have a hole.
I think that's crazy: you can't have a not-toy-program where you allocate memory on the heap without releasing it. But I don't have the knowledge to explain exactly why it's so important that for each malloc() there must be a free() .
So: are there ever circumstances in which it might be appropriate to use a malloc() without using free() ? And if not, how can I explain this to my professors?
Easy: just read the source of pretty much any half-serious malloc()/free() implementation. By this, I mean the actual memory manager that handles the work of the calls. This might be in the runtime library, virtual machine, or operating system. Of course the code is not equally accessible in all cases.
Making sure memory is not fragmented, by joining adjacent holes into larger holes, is very very common. More serious allocators use more serious techniques to ensure this.
So, let's assume you do three allocations and de-allocations and get blocks layed out in memory in this order:
+-+-+-+
|A|B|C|
+-+-+-+
The sizes of the individual allocations don't matter. then you free the first and last one, A and C:
+-+-+-+
| |B| |
+-+-+-+
when you finally free B, you (initially, at least in theory) end up with:
+-+-+-+
| | | |
+-+-+-+
which can be de-fragmented into just
+-+-+-+
| |
+-+-+-+
ie a single larger free block, no fragments left.
References, as requested:
heap4.c code in FreeRTOS. The other answers already explain perfectly well that real implementations of malloc() and free() do indeed coalesce (defragmnent) holes into larger free chunks. But even if that wasn't the case, it would still be a bad idea to forego free() .
The thing is, your program just allocated (and wants to free) those 4 bytes of memory. If it's going to run for an extended period of time, it's quite likely that it will need to allocate just 4 bytes of memory again. So even if those 4 bytes will never coalesce into a larger contiguous space, they can still be re-used by the program itself.
这完全是无稽之谈，例如有许多不同的malloc实现，有些试图让堆更有效率，比如Doug Lea或者这个。