Can a C++ class determine whether it's on the stack or heap?

A hacky way to do it:

struct Detect {
   Detect() {
      int i;
      check(&i);
   }

private:
   void check(int *i) {
      int j;
      if ((i < &j) == ((void*)this < (void*)&j))
         std::cout << "Stack" << std::endl;
      else
         std::cout << "Heap" << std::endl;
   }
};

If the object was created on the stack it must live somewhere in the direction of the outer functions stack variables. The heap usually grows from the other side, so that stack and heap would meet somewhere in the middle.

(There are for sure systems where this wouldn't work)

You need to actually ask us the real question^(a) :-) It may be apparent to you why you think this is necessary but it almost certainly isn't. In fact, it's almost always a bad idea. In other words, why do you think you need to do this?

I usually find it's because developers want to delete or not delete the object based on where it was allocated but that's something that should usually be left to the client of your code rather than your code itself.

Update:

Now that you've clarified your reasons in the question, I apologise, you've probably found one of the few areas in which what you're asking makes sense (running your own garbage collection processes). Ideally, you'd override all the memory allocation and de-allocation operators to keep track of what is created and removed from the heap.

However, I'm not sure it's a simple matter of intercepting the new/delete for the class since there could be situations where delete is not called and, since mark/sweep relies on a reference count, you need to be able to intercept pointer assignments for it to work correctly.

Have you thought about how you're going to handle that?

The classic example:

myobject *x = new xclass();
x = 0;

will not result in a delete call.

Also, how will you detect the fact that the pointer to one of your instances is on the stack? The interception of new and delete can let you store whether the object itself is stack or heap-based but I'm at a loss as to how you tell where the pointer is going to be assigned to, especially with code like:

myobject *x1 = new xclass();  // yes, calls new.
myobject *x2 = x;             // no, it doesn't.

Perhaps you may want to look into C++'s smart pointers, which go a long way toward making manual memory management obsolete. Shared pointers on their own can still suffer from problems like circular dependencies but the judicious use of weak pointers can readily solve that.

It may be that manual garbage collection is no longer required in your scenario.

^(a) This is known as the X/Y problem. Many times, people will ask a question that pre-supposes a class of solution whereas a better approach would be just to describe the problem with no preconceptions of what the best solution will be.

The answer is no, there is no standard/portable way to do this. Hacks involving overloading the new operator tend to have holes. Hacks that depend on checking pointer addresses are OS specific and heap implementation specific, and may change with future versions of the OS. You may be comfortable with that, but I wouldn't build any sort of system around this behavior.

I would start looking at different ways to accomplish your goal - perhaps you can have a totally different type to serve as the "root" in your scheme, or require the users to (properly) annotate the stack allocated types as such with a special constructor.

It is possible if you compare the value of 'this' with the current value of the stack pointer. If this < sp then you have been allocated in the stack.

Try this out (using gcc in x86-64):

#include <iostream>

class A
{
public:
    A()
    {
        int x;

        asm("movq %1, %%rax;"
            "cmpq %%rsp, %%rax;"
            "jbe Heap;"
            "movl $1,%0;"
            "jmp Done;"
            "Heap:"
            "movl $0,%0;"
            "Done:"
            : "=r" (x)
            : "r" (this)
            );

        std::cout << ( x ? " Stack " : " Heap " )  << std::endl; 
    }
};

class B
{
private:
    A a;
};

int main()
{
    A a;
    A *b = new A;
    A c;
    B x;
    B *y = new B;
    return 0;
}

It should output:

Stack 
Heap 
Stack 
Stack 
Heap

A more direct, and less intrusive method would be to look up the pointer in the memory region maps (such as /proc/<pid>/maps). Each thread has a region allocated to its stack. Static and global variables will live in the .bss section, constants in a rodata or const segment, and so on.

I am not positive what you are asking, but overriding the new operator may be what you are trying to do. As the only safe way to create an object on the heap in C++ is to use the new operator, you can differentiate between objects that exist on the heap versus other forms of memory. Google "overloading new in c++" for more information.

You should, however, consider if differentiating between the two types of memory is really necessary from inside the class. Having an object behave differently depending upon where it is stored sounds like a recipe for disaster if you are not careful!

As mentioned above, you need to control how your object is allocated through overloaded new operator. Watch out for two things however, first the 'placement new' operator that initializes your object inside the memory buffer preallocated by user; second, nothing stops the user from simply casting arbitrary memory buffer into your object type:

char buf[0xff]; (Foo*)buf;

Another way is the fact that most runtimes use a bit more memory than asked when doing heap allocations. They usually place some service structure there to identify proper deallocations by pointer. You could inspect your runtime implementation for these patterns, although it will make your code really unportable, dangerous and unsupportable overkill.

Again, as mentioned above, you really are asking for solution details ("how") when you should ask about the initial problem you devised this solution for ("why").

Nope, it can't be done reliably or sensibly.

You may be able to detect when an object is allocated with new by overloading new.

But then what if the object is constructed as a class member, and the owning class is allocated on the heap?

Here's a third code example to add to the two you've got:

class blah {
  Foo foo; // on the stack? Heap? Depends on where the 'blah' is allocated.
};

What about static/global objects? How would you tell them apart from stack/heap ones?

You could look at the address of the object, and use that to determine if it is within the range that defines the stack. But the stack may be resized at runtime.

So really, the best answer is that "there's a reason why mark & sweep GC's aren't used with C++". If you want a proper garbage collector, use a different language, one which supports it.

On the other hand, most experienced C++ programmers find that the need for a garbage collector pretty much vanishes when you learn the necessary techniques for resource management (RAII).

The meta question as asked by pax is asked "why would you want to do that" you'll likely get a more informative answer.

Now assuming you're doing this for "a good reason" (perhaps just curiousity) can get this behaviour by overriding operators new and delete, but don't forget to override all 12 variants including:

new, delete, new no throw, delete no throw, new array, delete array, new array no throw, delete array no throw, placement new, placement delete, placement new array, placement delete array.

One thing you can do is put this in a base class and derive from it.

This is kind of a pain, so what different behavior did you want?

Overload new() for your class. This way you'll be able to tell between heap and stack allocation, but not between stack and static/global.

I would recommend using smart pointers instead. By design, the class should have data and information about class. Book-keeping tasks should be delegated outside the class.

overloading new and delete can lead to more holes than you can imagine.