Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • Home
  • SEARCH
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 3355216
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 18, 20262026-05-18T02:22:04+00:00 2026-05-18T02:22:04+00:00

Before variable-length arrays were supported, I would dynamically allocate them like this: int foo(size_t

  • 0

Before variable-length arrays were supported, I would dynamically allocate them like this:

int foo(size_t n)
{
    int *arr = malloc(n * sizeof int);
    if (!arr) return ENOMEM; /* not enough memory */
    .
    . else do stuff with arr[]
    .
    free(arr);
    return 0;
}

With variable-length arrays I can now make it look cleaner:

int bar(size_t n)
{
    int arr[n];
    .
    . do stuff with arr[]
    .
    return 0;
}

But now I have no “out of memory” checking. In fact, the program crashes if n is too big.

How can I gracefully bail from bar(n) if n is too big?

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-18T02:22:05+00:00Added an answer on May 18, 2026 at 2:22 am

    The situation is exactly unchanged from any other local variables – a declaration like this:

    int baz(void)
    {
        int arr[100000];
        .
        . do stuff with arr[]
        .
        return 0;
    }
    

    has exactly the same problem. The “solution” is the same as it always has been – don’t recurse too deeply, and don’t allocate very large data structures with automatic storage duration (continue to use malloc() for these cases). The value of “very large” depends strongly upon your environment.

    In other words, don’t declare int array[n]; unless you know that n is bounded to a reasonable value, such that you would have been happy to declare an array of that maximum size as an ordinary, non-variably-modified type array.

    (Yes, this means that variably-modified type arrays are not as useful as they first appear, since you gain very little over just declaring the array at the maximum needed size).

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

Before I do this I figured I would ask if it was the best
I have always wondered if, in general, declaring a throw-away variable before a loop,
What is the recommended method for escaping variables before inserting them into the database
Before you answer this I have never developed anything popular enough to attain high
Before I start, I know there is this post and it doesn't answer my
Before anyone suggests scrapping the table tags altogether, I'm just modifying this part of
Basically my task is having to sort a bunch of strings of variable length
Is it possible to have the array subscript before the variable name in declaration?
While coding in C#, I by mistake added a strudel sign before a variable
My question is related to this thread. Here is the code #include <stdio.h> int

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.