Malloc was not declared within this scope.
You don't need to cast Malloc()'s return value.
Does using heap memory(Malloc/new) create a non-deterministic program?
What REALLY happens when you don't free after Malloc?
In what cases do I use Malloc vs new?
Tuning it will only save a few calls to Malloc().
AFAICT, Malloc never initializes its memory by definition in the C.
You don't even need to cast return value of Malloc in C.
The casting of Malloc is unnecessary in C but mandatory in C++.
A call on Malloc() returns NULL because there is not enough memory,
or.
But if you free first, Malloc might re-use the freed memory instead.
But if you program in C++,
you should use new and not Malloc().
C uses Malloc and C++ uses new, but
many other languages have garbage collection.
Unfortunately it's not as simple as"every call to Malloc will be counted in'sys' time".
Finding a package that can work with both new/delete and Malloc/free obviously gives you more flexibility.
Some operations that you do(like Malloc orfread/fwrite) will invoke these Kernel functions
and that then will count as'sys' time.
New allocations on the heap(by new or Malloc) are satisfied by creating a suitable
block from one of the free blocks.
I bet you could do an SO study that shows that Malloc() bugs are caught much
faster when there's a cast.
After returning from the kernel call, there will be some more time in'user' and then Malloc will return to your code.
On the other hand, you can now Malloc() 9000 more blocks without increasing
the amount of memory your program is tying up.
It is not mandatory to cast the results of Malloc, since it returns void*,
and a void* can be pointed to any datatype.
The most common reason why people cast the result of Malloc is because they are unsure about how the C language works.
Although Malloc without casting is preferred method and most experienced programmers choose it,
you should use whichever you like having aware of the issues.
A memory leak is when memory is dynamically allocated,
eg with Malloc(), and all references to the memory are lost without the corresponding free.
If the type of the pointer is changed at its declaration,
one may also need to change all lines where Malloc is called and cast.
Casting the value returned by Malloc() is not necessary now,
but I would like to add one point that seems no one has pointed out:.
Where we say something is limited only by available memory, that means that internal data structures impose no intrinsic limit,
and space is allocated with Malloc or equivalent.
You can store the result of Malloc into any pointer variable without a cast,
because ISO C automatically converts the type void * to another type of pointer when necessary.
Compare: Malloc(sizeof *sieve * length * width)
vs. Malloc(length * width * sizeof *sieve) the second may overflow the length * width when width and length are smaller types than size_t.
If you use Malloc in C there is no need to type cast it,
as it will automatically type cast, However if your using C++ then you should type cast because Malloc will return a void* type.