C program with minimum RAM

Question

I want to understand the memory management in C and C++ programming for Application Development. Application will run on the PC.

If I want to make a program which uses R

Answer 1

Typically, a certain amount of space will be allocated for the stack; such space will be unavailable for other purposes whether or not it is used. If the space turns out to be inadequate, the program will die a gruesome death.

Local variables will be stored using some combination of registers and stack space. Some compilers will use the same registers or stack space for variables which are "live" at different times in a program's execution; others will not. Further, function arguments are typically pushed on the stack before calling a function and removed at the caller's convenience. In evaluating the code sequence:

function1(1,2,3,4,5);
function2(6,7,8,9,10);

the arguments for the first function will be pushed on the stack and that function will be called. At that point the compiler could remove those five values off the stack, but since a single instruction can remove any number of pushed values, many compilers will push the arguments for the second function (leaving the arguments of the first on the stack), call the second function, and then use one instruction to eliminate all ten. Normally this would be a non-issue, but in some deeply-nested recursive scenarios it could potentially be a problem.

Unless the "PC" you're developing for is tiny by today's standards, I wouldn't worry too much about trying to micro-optimize RAM usage. I've developed code for microcontrollers with only 25 bytes of RAM, and even written full-fledged games for use on a microprocessor-based console with a whopping 128 bytes (not KBytes!) of RAM, and on such system sit makes sense to worry about each individual byte. For PC applications, though, the only time it makes sense to worry about individual bytes is when they're part of a data structure which will get replicated many thousands of times in RAM.

Answer 2

1) Generally the alternative to allocating on the stack is allocating on the heap (e.g., with malloc) which actually has a greater overhead due to bookkeeping/etc, and the stack already has memory reserved for it, so allocating on the stack where possible is often preferable. On the other hand there is less space on the stack while the heap can be close to “unlimited” on modern systems with virtual memory and 64-bit address space.

2) On PCs and other non-embedded system, everything in your program goes in RAM, i.e., it is not flashed to a ROM-like memory, so global versus local does not help in that regard. Also globals† tend to “live” as long as the application is running, while locals can be allocated and freed (either on the stack or heap) as required, and are thus preferable.

  † More accurately, there can also be local variables with static duration, and variables with global scope that are pointers to dynamically allocated memory, so the terms local and global are used quite loosely here.

In general, modern desktop/laptop and even mobile operating systems are quite good at managing memory, so you probably shouldn't be trying to micro-optimize everything as you may actually do more harm than good.

If you really do need to bring down the memory footprint of your program, you must realize that everything in the program is stored in RAM, and so you need to work on reducing the number and size of the things you have, rather than trying to juggle their location. The other place where you can store things locally on a PC is the hard drive, so store large resources there and only load them as required (preferably only exactly the parts required). But remember that disk access is orders of magnitude slower than memory access, and that the operating system can also swap things out to disk if its memory gets full.

The program code itself is also stored in RAM, so have your compiler optimize for size (-Os or /Os option in many common compilers). Also remember that if you save a bit of space in variables by writing more complex code, the effort may be undone by the increased code size; save your optimizations for big wins (e.g., compressing large resources will require the added decompression code, but may still yield a large net win). Use of dynamically linked libraries (and other resources) also helps the overall memory footprint of the system if the same library is used by multiple programs running at the same time.

(Note that some of the above does not apply in embedded development, e.g., code and static constants may be indeed be stored in flash instead of RAM, etc.)

Answer 3

This is difficult because on your PC, the program will be running out of RAM unless you can somehow execute it out a ROM or Flash.

Here are the points to consider:

Reduce your code size.
Code takes up RAM.

Reduce variable quantity and size.
Variables need to live somewhere and that somewhere is in RAM.

Reduce character literals.
They too, take up space.

Reduce function call nesting.
A function may require parameters, which are placed in RAM. A function that calls other functions needs a return path; the path is stored in RAM.

Use RAM from other devices.
Other devices, such as the Graphics Processor and your harddrive adaptor card, may have RAM you can use. If you use this RAM, you're not using the primary RAM.

Page memory to external device.
The OS is capable of virtual memory and can page memory out to an external device, such as a hard drive.

Edit 1 - Dynamic libraries Too reduce the RAM footprint of your program, you could allocate a an area where you swap out library functions. This is similar to the DLL concept. When a function is needed, you load it from the hard drive into the reserved area.

Answer 4

Any variables, by definition, must be stored in read/write memory (or RAM). If you are talking about an embedded system with the code initially in ROM, then the runtime will copy the ROM image you identified into RAM to hold the values of the global variables.

Only items marked unchangeable (const) may be kept in the ROM during runtime.

Further, you need to reduce the depth of the calling structure of the program as each function call requires stack space (also in RAM) to record the return address and other values.

To minimise the use of memory, you can try to flag local variables with the register attribute, but this may not be honoured by your compiler.

Another common technique is to dynamically generate large variable data on the fly whenever it is required to avoid having to create buffers. These usually take up much more space the simple variables.

Answer 5

You might want to get a book on "embedded" programming. Such a book will likely discuss ways to keep the memory footprint down, as embedded systems are more constrained than modern desktop or server systems.

When you use "local" variables, they are saved on the stack. As long as you don't use too much stack, this is basically free memory, as when the function exits the memory is returned. How much is "too much" varies... recently I had to work on a system where there is a limit of 8 KB of data for the stack per process.

When you use "global" variables or other static variables, the memory you use is tied up for the duration of the program. Thus you should minimize your use of globals, and/or find ways to share the same memory across multiple functions in your program.

I wrote a fairly elaborate "object manager" for a project I wrote a few years ago. A function can use the "get" operation to borrow an object, and then use the "release" operation when it is done borrowing the object. This means that all the functions in the system were able to share a relatively small amount of data space by taking turns using the shared objects. It's up to you to decide whether it is worth your time to build an "object manager" sort of thing or if you have enough memory to just use simple variables.

You can get much of the benefit of an "object manager" by simply calling malloc() and free() a lot. Then the heap allocator manages the shared resource, the heap memory, for you. The reason I wrote my own "object manager" was a need for speed. My system keeps using identical data objects, and it is way faster to just keep re-using the same ones than to keep freeing them and malloc-ing them again. Also, my system can be run on a DSP chip, and malloc() can be a surprisingly slow function on some DSP architectures.

Having multiple functions using the same global variables can lead you to tricky bugs, if one function tries to hold on to a global buffer while another one is overwriting the data. So your program will likely be more robust if you use malloc() and free() as long as each function only writes into data it allocated for itself. (But malloc() and free() can introduce bugs of their own: memory leaks, double-free errors, continuing to use a pointer after the data to which it points has been freed... if you use malloc() and free() be sure to use a tool such as Valgrind to check your code.)

Answer 6

if this is a PC, then by default, you will be given a stack of a certain size ( you can make it bigger or smaller ). Using this stack is more efficient RAM wise than using global variables. because your ram usage will be the fixed stack size + globals + other stuff ( program, heap etc). The stack acts as a resuable piece of memory.