C++中malloc和realloc的意义

realloc

       1. realloc失败的时候，返回NULL
　　2. realloc失败的时候，原来的内存不改变，不会释放也不会移动
　　3. 假如原来的内存后面还有足够多剩余内存的话，realloc的内存=原来的内存+剩余内存,realloc还是返回原来内存的地址; 假如原来的内存后面没有足够多剩余内存的话，realloc将申请新的内存，然后把原来的内存数据拷贝到新内存里，原来的内存将被free掉,realloc返回新内存的地址
　　4. 如果size为0，效果等同于free()
　　5. 传递给realloc的指针必须是先前通过malloc(), calloc(), 或realloc()分配的
　　6.传递给realloc的指针可以为空，等同于malloc。

malloc

Others have answered how malloc(0) works. I will answer one of the questions that you asked that hasn't been answered yet (I think). The question is about realloc(malloc(0), 0):

What does malloc(0) return? Would the answer be same for realloc(malloc(0),0)?

The standard says this about realloc(ptr, size):

• if ptr is NULL, it behaves like malloc(size),
• otherwise (ptr is not NULL), it deallocates the old object pointer to by ptr and returns a pointer to a new allocated buffer. But if size is 0, C89 says that the effect is equivalent to free(ptr). Interestingly, I can't find that statement in C99 draft (n1256 or n1336). In C89, the only sensible value to return in that case would be NULL.

So, there are two cases:

• malloc(0) returns NULL on an implementation. Then your realloc() call is equivalent torealloc(NULL, 0). That is equivalent to malloc(0) from above (and that is NULL in this case).
• malloc(0) returns non-NULL. Then, the call is equivalent to free(malloc(0)). In this case,malloc(0) and realloc(malloc(0), 0) are not equivalent.

Note that there is an interesting case here: in the second case, when malloc(0) returns non-NULLon success, it may still return NULL to indicate failure. This will result in a call like: realloc(NULL, 0), which would be equivalent to malloc(0), which may or may not return NULL.

I am not sure if the omission in C99 is an oversight or if it means that in C99, realloc(ptr, 0) for non-NULL ptr is not equivalent to free(ptr). I just tried this with gcc -std=c99, and the above is equivalent to free(ptr).

Edit: I think I understand what your confusion is:

Let's look at a snippet from your example code:

ptr = malloc(0);
if (ptr == realloc(ptr, 1024))

The above is not the same as malloc(0) == realloc(malloc(0), 1024). In the second, themalloc() call is made twice, whereas in the first, you're passing a previously allocated pointer torealloc().

Let's analyze the first code first. Assuming malloc(0) doesn't return NULL on success, ptr has a valid value. When you do realloc(ptr, 1024), realloc() basically gives you a new buffer that has the size 1024, and the ptr becomes invalid. A conforming implementation may return the same address as the one already in ptr. So, your if condition may return true. (Note, however, looking at the value of ptr after realloc(ptr, 1024) may be undefined behavior.)

Now the question you ask: malloc(0) == realloc(malloc(0), 1024). In this case, let's assume that both the malloc(0) on the LHS and RHS returns non-NULL. Then, they are guaranteed to be different. Also, the return value from malloc() on the LHS hasn't been free()d yet, so any othermalloc(), calloc(), or realloc() may not return that value. This means that if you wrote your condition as:

if (malloc(0) == realloc(malloc(0), 1024)
    puts("possible");

you won't see possible on the output (unless both malloc() and realloc() fail and returnNULL).

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

int main(void)
{
    void *p1;
    void *p2;

    p1 = malloc(0);
    p2 = realloc(p1, 1024);
    if (p1 == p2)
        puts("possible, OK");

    /* Ignore the memory leaks */
    if (malloc(0) == realloc(malloc(0), 1024))
        puts("shouldn't happen, something is wrong");
    return 0;
}

On OS X, my code didn't output anything when I ran it. On Linux, it prints possible, OK.