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 4113306
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 20, 20262026-05-20T22:18:26+00:00 2026-05-20T22:18:26+00:00

I thought that I couldn’t retrieve the length of an allocated memory block like

  • 0

I thought that I couldn’t retrieve the length of an allocated memory block like the simple .length function in Java. However, I now know that when malloc() allocates the block, it allocates extra bytes to hold an integer containing the size of the block. This integer is located at the beginning of the block; the address actually returned to the caller points to the location just past this length value. The problem is, I can’t access that address to retrieve the block length.

#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
        char *str;
        str = (char*) malloc(sizeof(char)*1000);
        int *length;
        length = str-4; /*because on 32 bit system, an int is 4 bytes long*/
        printf("Length of str:%d\n", *length);
        free(str);
}

**Edit:
I finally did it. The problem is, it keeps giving 0 as the length instead of the size on my system is because my Ubuntu is 64 bit. I changed str-4 to str-8, and it works now.

If I change the size to 2000, it produces 2017 as the length. However, when I change to 3000, it gives 3009. I am using GCC.

  • 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
    2026-05-20T22:18:26+00:00Added an answer on May 20, 2026 at 10:18 pm

    What you’re doing is definitely wrong. While it’s almost certain that the word just before the allocated block is related to the size, even so it probably contains some additional flags or information in the unused bits. Depending on the implementation, this data might even be in the high bits, which would cause you to read the entirely wrong length. Also it’s possible that small allocations (e.g. 1 to 32 bytes) are packed into special small-block pages with no headers, in which case the word before the allocated block is just part of another block and has no meaning whatsoever in relation to the size of the block you’re examining.

    Just stop this misguided and dangerous pursuit. If you need to know the size of a block obtained by malloc, you’re doing something wrong.

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

Sidebar

Related Questions

I always thought that you could use OR in a LIKE statment to query
I've always thought it was great that I could use simple iconic unicode characters
I thought that a delegate instance was interchangeable with a function instance. Take the
I have a very simple batch file that lauches a Java app (Saxon) with
Today my Visual studio couldn't help me by auto complete so I thought that
I thought that a 32-bit process could use at most 2GB RAM, since half
I thought that by convention, only methods with an exclamation mark altered the object.
I thought that by default my Regex would exhibit the greedy behavior that I
I thought that calling BeginInvoke more than once on the same delegate instance would
I thought that this was easier… I have a asp:hyperlink control, with target=_blank ,

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.