The stack is the memory set aside as scratch space for a thread of execution. When a function is called, a block is reserved on the top of the stack for local variables and some bookkeeping data. When that function returns, the block becomes unused and can be used the next time a function is called. The stack is always reserved in a LIFO (last in first out) order; the most recently reserved block is always the next block to be freed. This makes it really simple to keep track of the stack; freeing a block from the stack is nothing more than adjusting one pointer.
The heap is memory set aside for dynamic allocation. Unlike the stack, there's no enforced pattern to the allocation and deallocation of blocks from the heap; you can allocate a block at any time and free it at any time. This makes it much more complex to keep track of which parts of the heap are allocated or free at any given time; there are many custom heap allocators available to tune heap performance for different usage patterns.
Each thread gets a stack, while there's typically only one heap for the application (although it isn't uncommon to have multiple heaps for different types of allocation).
To answer your questions directly:
To what extent are they controlled by the OS or language runtime?
The OS allocates the stack for each system-level thread when the thread is created. Typically the OS is called by the language runtime to allocate the heap for the application.
What is their scope?
The stack is attached to a thread, so when the thread exits the stack is reclaimed. The heap is typically allocated at application startup by the runtime, and is reclaimed when the application (technically process) exits.
What determines the size of each of them?
The size of the stack is set when a thread is created. The size of the heap is set on application startup, but can grow as space is needed (the allocator requests more memory from the operating system).
What makes one faster?
The stack is faster because the access pattern makes it trivial to allocate and deallocate memory from it (a pointer/integer is simply incremented or decremented), while the heap has much more complex bookkeeping involved in an allocation or deallocation. Also, each byte in the stack tends to be reused very frequently which means it tends to be mapped to the processor's cache, making it very fast. Another performance hit for the heap is that the heap, being mostly a global resource, typically has to be multi-threading safe, i.e. each allocation and deallocation needs to be - typically - synchronized with "all" other heap accesses in the program.
A clear demonstration:
Image source: vikashazrati.wordpress.com
Stack allocation is much faster since all it really does is move the stack pointer.
Using memory pools, you can get comparable performance out of heap allocation, but that comes with a slight added complexity and its own headaches.
Also, stack vs. heap is not only a performance consideration; it also tells you a lot about the expected lifetime of objects.
Best Answer
Use automatic (stack) allocation whenever the function scope - or the scope of a control block such as a
for,while,ifetc. inside the function - is a good match for the lifetime the object needs. That way, if the object owns/controls any resources, such as dynamically allocated memory, file handles etc. - they will be freed during the destructor call as that scope is left. (Not at some unpredictable later time when a garbage collector winds up).Only use
newif there's a clear need, such as:needing the object to live longer than the function scope,
to hand over ownership to some other code
to have a container of pointers to base classes that you can then process polymorphically (i.e. using virtual dispatch to derived-class function implementations), or
an especially large allocation that would eat up much of the stack (your OS/process will have "negotiated" a limit, usually in the 1-8+ megabyte range)
std::unique_ptr<>to manage the dynamic memory, and ensure it is released no matter how you leave the scope: byreturn,throw,breaketc.. (You may also use astd::unique_ptr<>data member in aclass/structto manage any memory the object owns.)Mathieu Van Nevel comments below about C++11 move semantics - the relevance is that if you have a small management object on the stack that controls a large amount of dynamically allocated (heap) memory, move semantics grant extra assurances and fine-grained control of when the management object hands over its resources to another management object owned by other code (often the caller, but potentially some other container/register of objects). This handover can avoid data on the heap being copied/duplicated even momentarily. Additionally, elision and return-value-optimisation often allow nominally automatic/stack-hosted variables to be constructed directly in some memory they're eventually being assigned/returned-to, rather than copied there later.