Why are structs stored on the stack while classes get stored on the heap(.NET)?

Question

I know that one of the differences between classes and structs is that struct instances get stored on stack and class instances(objects) are stored on the heap.

Sinc

Answer 1

How the compiler and run-time environment handle memory management has grown up over a long period of time. The stack memory v.s. heap memory allocation decision had a lot to do with what could be known at compile-time and what could be known at runtime. This was before managed run times.

In general, the compiler has very good control of what's on the stack, it gets to decide what is cleaned up and when based on calling conventions. The heap on the other hand, was more like the wild west. The compiler did not have good control of when things came and went. By placing function arguments on the stack, the compiler is able to make a scope -- that scope can be controlled over the lifetime of the call. This is a natural place to put value types, because they are easy to control as opposed to reference types that can hand out memory locations (pointers) to just about anyone they want.

Modern memory management changes a lot of this. The .NET runtime can take control of reference types and the managed heap through complex garbage collection and memory management algorithms. This is also a very, very deep subject.

I recommend you check out some texts on compilers -- I grew up on Aho, so I recommend that. You can also learn a lot about the subject by reading Gosling.

Answer 2

The main difference being that the heap may hold objects that live forever while something on the stack is temporary in that it will disappear when the enclosing callsite is exited. This is because when one enters a method it grows to hold local variables as well as the caller method. When the method exits (ab)normally eg return or because of exception each frame must be popped off the stack. Eventually the interested frame is popped and everything on it lost.

Answer 3

Value types go on the stack, reference types go on the heap. A struct is a value type.

There is no guaruantee about this in the specification though, so it might change in future releases:)

Answer 4

The whole point about using the stack is that it automatically implements and honours scope. A variable stored on the stack exists until the functiont that created it exits and that functions stack frame is popped. Things that have local scope are natural for stack storage things that have bigger scope are more difficult to manage on the stack. Objects on the heap can have lifetimes that are controlled in more complex ways.

Compilers always use the stack for variables - value or reference it makes little difference. A reference variable doesn't have to have its value stored on the stack - it can be anywhere and the heap makes a more efficient if the object referenced is big and if there are multiple references to it. The point is that the scope of a reference variable isn't the same as the lifetime of the object it references i.e. a variable may be destroyed by being popped off the stack but the object (on the heap) it references might live on.

If a value type is small enough you might as well store it on the stack in place of a reference to it on the heap - its lifetime is tied to the scope of the variable. If the value type is part of a larger reference type then it too could have multiple references to it and hence it is more natural to store it on the heap and dissociate its lifetime from any single reference variable.

Stack and heap are about lifetimes and the value v reference semantics is almost a by product.

Have a look at Value and Reference

Answer 5

It's useful in practice to be able to allocate memory on the stack for some purposes, since those allocations are very fast.

However, it's worth noting that there's no fundamental guarantee that all structs will be placed on the stack. Eric Lippert recently wrote an interesting blog entry on this topic.