How to know if a pointer points to the heap or the stack?

Example:

bool isHeapPtr(void* ptr)
{
     //...
}

int iStack = 35;
int *ptrStack = &iStack;
bool isHeapPointer1 = isHeapPtr(ptrStack); // Should be false
bool isHeapPointer2 = isHeapPtr(new int(5)); // Should be true
/* I know... it is a memory leak */

Why, I want to know this:

If I have in a class a member-pointer and I don't know if the pointing object is n开发者_JAVA技巧ew-allocated. Then I should use such a utility to know if I have to delete the pointer.

But:

My design isn't made yet. So, I will program it that way I always have to delete it. I'm going to avoid rubbish programming

There is no way of doing this - and if you need to do it, there is something wrong with your design. There is a discussion of why you can't do this in More Effective C++.

In the general case, you're out of luck, I'm afraid - since pointers can have any value, there's no way to tell them apart. If you had knowledge of your stack start address and size (from your TCB in an embedded operating system, for example), you might be able to do it. Something like:

stackBase = myTCB->stackBase;
stackSize = myTCB->stackSize;

if ((ptrStack < stackBase) && (ptrStack > (stackBase - stackSize)))
    isStackPointer1 = TRUE;

The only "good" solution I can think of is to overload operator new for that class and track it. Something like this (brain compiled code):

class T {
public:    
    void *operator new(size_t n) {
        void *p = ::operator new(n);
        heap_track().insert(p);
        return p;
    }

    void operator delete(void* p) {
        heap_track().erase(p);
        ::operator delete(p);
    }

private:

    // a function to avoid static initialization order fiasco
    static std::set<void*>& heap_track() {
        static std::set<void*> s_;
        return s_;
    }

public:
    static bool is_heap(void *p) {
        return heap_track().find(p) != heap_track().end();
    }
};

Then you can do stuff like this:

T *x = new X;
if(T::is_heap(x)) {
    delete x;
}

However, I would advise against a design which requires you to be able to ask if something was allocated on the heap.

Well, get out your assembler book, and compare your pointer's address to the stack-pointer:

int64_t x = 0;
asm("movq %%rsp, %0;" : "=r" (x) );
if ( myPtr < x ) {
   ...in heap...
}

Now x would contain the address to which you'll have to compare your pointer to. Note that it will not work for memory allocated in another thread, since it will have its own stack.

here it is, works for MSVC:

#define isheap(x, res) {   \
void* vesp, *vebp;     \
_asm {mov vesp, esp};   \
_asm {mov vebp, ebp};    \
res = !(x < vebp && x >= vesp); }

int si;

void func()
{
    int i;
    bool b1;
    bool b2;
    isheap(&i, b1); 
    isheap(&si, b2);
    return;
}

it is a bit ugly, but works. Works only for local variables. If you pass stack pointer from calling function this macro will return true (means it is heap)

In mainstream operating systems, the stack grows from the top while the heap grows from the bottom. So you might heuristically check whether the address is beyond a large value, for some definition of "large." For example, the following works on my 64-bit Linux system:

#include <iostream>

bool isHeapPtr(const void* ptr) {
  return reinterpret_cast<unsigned long long int>(ptr) < 0xffffffffull;
}

int main() {
  int iStack = 35;
  int *ptrStack = &iStack;
  std::cout << isHeapPtr(ptrStack) << std::endl;
  std::cout << isHeapPtr(new int(5)) << std::endl;
}

Note that is a crude heuristic that might be interesting to play with, but is not appropriate for production code.

First, why do you need to know this? What real problem are you trying to solve?

The only way I'm aware of to make this sort of determination would be to overload global operator new and operator delete. Then you can ask your memory manager if a pointer belongs to it (the heap) or not (stack or global data).

Even if you could determine whether a pointer was on one particular heap, or one particular stack, there can be multiple heaps and multiple stacks for one application.

Based on the reason for asking, it is extremely important for each container to have a strict policy on whether it "owns" pointers that it holds or not. After all, even if those pointers point to heap-allocated memory, some other piece of code might also have a copy of the same pointer. Each pointer should have one "owner" at a time, though ownership can be transferred. The owner is responsible for destructing.

On rare occasions, it is useful for a container to keep track of both owned and non-owned pointers - either using flags, or by storing them separately. Most of the time, though, it's simpler just to set a clear policy for any object that can hold pointers. For example, most smart pointers always own their container real pointers.

Of course smart pointers are significant here - if you want an ownership-tracking pointer, I'm sure you can find or write a smart pointer type to abstract that hassle away.

Despite loud claims to the contrary, it is clearly possible to do what you want, in a platform-dependent way. However just because something is possible, that does not automatically make it a good idea. A simple rule of stack==no delete, otherwise==delete is unlikely to work well.

A more common way is to say that if I allocated a buffer, then I have to delete it, If the program passes me a buffer, it is not my responsibility to delete it.

e.g.

class CSomething
{
public:
    CSomething()
    : m_pBuffer(new char[128])
    , m_bDeleteBuffer(true)
    {
    }

    CSomething(const char *pBuffer)
    : m_pBuffer(pBuffer)
    , m_bDeleteBuffer(false)
    {
    }

    ~CSomething()
    {
        if (m_bDeleteBuffer)
            delete [] m_pBuffer;
    }

private:
    const char *m_pBuffer;
    bool        m_bDeleteBuffer;
};

You're trying to do it the hard way. Clarify your design so it's clear who "owns" data and let that code deal with its lifetime.

here is universal way to do it in windows using TIP:

bool isStack(void* x)
{
    void* btn, *top;
    _asm {
        mov eax, FS:[0x08] 
        mov btn, eax
        mov eax, FS:[0x04] 
        mov top, eax
    }
    return x < top && x > btn;
}

void func()
{

    int i;

    bool b1;
    bool b2;

    b1 = isStack(&i);
    b2 = isStack(&si);

    return;
}

The only way I know of doing this semi-reliably is if you can overload operator new for the type for which you need to do this. Unfortunately there are some major pitfalls there and I can't remember what they are.

I do know that one pitfall is that something can be on the heap without having been allocated directly. For example:

class A {
   int data;
};

class B {
 public:
   A *giveMeAnA() { return &anA; }
   int data;
   A anA;
};

void foo()
{
   B *b = new B;
   A *a = b->giveMeAnA();
}

In the above code a in foo ends up with a pointer to an object on the heap that was not allocated with new. If your question is really "How do I know if I can call delete on this pointer." overloading operator new to do something tricky might help you answer that question. I still think that if you have to ask that question you've done something very wrong.

How could you not know if something is heap-allocated or not? You should design the software to have a single point of allocation.

Unless you're doing some truly exotic stuff in an embedded device or working deep in a custom kernel, I just don't see the need for it.

Look at this code (no error checking, for the sake of example):

class A
{
int *mysweetptr;

A()
{
   mysweetptr = 0; //always 0 when unalloc'd
}

void doit()
{
   if( ! mysweetptr)
   {
       mysweetptr = new int; //now has non-null value
   }
}

void undoit()
{
   if(mysweetptr)
   {
      delete mysweetptr;
      mysweetptr = 0;  //notice that we reset it to 0.
   }
}

bool doihaveit()
{
   if(mysweetptr)
     return true;
   else 
     return false; 
}
~A()
{
   undoit();
}
};

In particular, notice that I am using the null value to determine whether the pointer has been allocated or not, or if I need to delete it or not.

Your design should not rely on determining this information (as others have pointed out, it's not really possible). Instead, your class should explicitly define the ownership of pointers that it takes in its constructor or methods. If your class takes ownership of those pointers, then it is incorrect behavior to pass in a pointer to the stack or global, and you should delete it with the knowledge that incorrect client code may crash. If your class does not take ownership, it should not be deleting the pointer.