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 882419
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 15, 20262026-05-15T12:25:24+00:00 2026-05-15T12:25:24+00:00

I have read that free() generally does not return memory to the OS. Can

  • 0

I have read that free() “generally” does not return memory to the OS. Can we portably make use of this feature of free(). For example,is this portable?

 /* Assume I know i would need memory equivalent to 10000 integers at max
    during the lifetime of the process */

 unsigned int* p = malloc(sizeof(unsigned int) * 10000);

 if ( p == NULL)
  return 1;

 free(p);

 /* Different points in the program */

 unsigned int* q = malloc(sizeof(unsigned int) * 5);

 /* No need to check for the return value of malloc */

I am writing a demo where I would know in advance how many call contexts to support.

Is it feasible to allocate "n" number of "call contexts" structures in advance and then free them immediately. Would that guarantee that my future malloc calls would not fail?

Does this give me any advantage with regards to efficiency? I am thinking one less “if” check plus would memory management work better if a large chunk was initially acquired and is now available with free. Would this cause less fragmentation?

  • 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
    2026-05-15T12:25:24+00:00Added an answer on May 15, 2026 at 12:25 pm

    You would be better off keeping the initial block of memory allocated then using a pool to make it available to clients in your application. It isn’t good form to rely on esoteric behaviors to maintain the stability of your code. If anything changes, you could be dealing with bad pointers and having program crashes.

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

Sidebar

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.