Why is it safer to use sizeof(*pointer) in malloc

by

It is safer because you don’t have to mention the type name twice and don’t have to build the proper spelling for the “dereferenced” version of the type. For example, you don’t have to “count the stars” in

int *****p = malloc(100 * sizeof *p);

Compare that to the type-based sizeof in

int *****p = malloc(100 * sizeof(int ****));

where you have to make sure you used the right number of * under sizeof.

In order to switch to another type you only have to change one place (the declaration of p) instead of two. And people who have the habit of casting the result of malloc have to change three places.

More generally, it makes a lot of sense to stick to the following guideline: type names belong in declarations and nowhere else. The actual statements should be type-independent. They should avoid mentioning any type names or using any other type-specific features as much as possible.

The latter means: Avoid unnecessary casts. Avoid unnecessary type-specific constant syntax (like 0.0 or 0L where a plain 0 would suffice). Avoid mentioning type names under sizeof. And so on.

More Related Contents:

  1. Why this program is crashing?
  2. How can I get the size of an array from a pointer in C?
  3. What’s the point of malloc(0)?
  4. Dynamic memory access only works inside function
  5. Why is malloc not “using up” the memory on my computer?
  6. newbie questions about malloc and sizeof
  7. How can I allocate memory and return it (via a pointer-parameter) to the calling function?
  8. sprintf() with automatic memory allocation?
  9. How to dynamically allocate memory space for a string and get that string from user?
  10. How is malloc() implemented internally? [duplicate]
  11. Maximum memory which malloc can allocate
  12. aligned malloc() in GCC?
  13. free char*: invalid next size (fast) [duplicate]
  14. malloced array VS. variable-length-array [duplicate]
  15. How to use realloc in a function in C
  16. C – Accessing data AFTER memory has been free()ed?
  17. Dynamically create an array of strings with malloc
  18. allocate matrix in C
  19. C Warning: Function returns address of local variable
  20. Do I really need malloc?
  21. malloc(sizeof(int)) vs malloc(sizeof(int *)) vs (int *)malloc(sizeof(int))
  22. malloc implementation?
  23. Getting the size of a malloc only with the returned pointer
  24. Using sizeof() on malloc’d memory [duplicate]
  25. Why do I get a warning every time I use malloc?
  26. An alternative for the deprecated __malloc_hook functionality of glibc
  27. Why does this intentionally incorrect use of strcpy not fail horribly?
  28. realloc(): invalid next size when reallocating to make space for strcat on char * [duplicate]
  29. Minimizing the amount of malloc() calls improves performance?
  30. Is null character included while allocating using malloc

Leave a Comment