Suppose I have the following code:
void* my_alloc (size_t size)
{
return new char [size];
}
void my_free (void* ptr)
{
delete [] ptr;
}
Is this safe? Or must ptr be cast to char* prior to deletion?
Deleting via a void pointer is undefined by the C++ Standard - see section 5.3.5/3:
In the first alternative (delete
object), if the static type of the
operand is different from its dynamic
type, the static type shall be a base
class of the operand’s dynamic type
and the static type shall have a
virtual destructor or the behavior is
undefined. In the second alternative
(delete array) if the dynamic type of
the object to be deleted differs from
its static type, the behavior is
undefined.
And its footnote:
This implies that an object cannot be
deleted using a pointer of type void*
because there are no objects of type
void
.
It depends on "safe." It will usually work because information is stored along with the pointer about the allocation itself, so the deallocator can return it to the right place. In this sense it is "safe" as long as your allocator uses internal boundary tags. (Many do.)
However, as mentioned in other answers, deleting a void pointer will not call destructors, which can be a problem. In that sense, it is not "safe."
There is no good reason to do what you are doing the way you are doing it. If you want to write your own deallocation functions, you can use function templates to generate functions with the correct type. A good reason to do that is to generate pool allocators, which can be extremely efficient for specific types.
As mentioned in other answers, this is undefined behavior in C++. In general it is good to avoid undefined behavior, although the topic itself is complex and filled with conflicting opinions.
It's not a good idea and not something you would do in C++. You are losing your type info for no reason.
Your destructor won't be called on the objects in your array that you are deleting when you call it for non primitive types.
You should instead override new/delete.
Deleting the void* will probably free your memory correctly by chance, but it's wrong because the results are undefined.
If for some reason unknown to me you need to store your pointer in a void* then free it, you should use malloc and free.
Deleting a void pointer is dangerous because destructors will not be called on the value it actually points to. This can result in memory / resource leaks in your application.
If you really must do this, why not cut out the middle man (the new and delete operators) and call the global operator new and operator delete directly? (Of course, if you're trying to instrument the new and delete operators, you actually ought to reimplement operator new and operator delete.)
void* my_alloc (size_t size)
{
return ::operator new(size);
}
void my_free (void* ptr)
{
::operator delete(ptr);
}
Note that unlike malloc(), operator new throws std::bad_alloc on failure (or calls the new_handler if one is registered).
The question makes no sense. Your confusion may be partly due to the sloppy language people often use with delete:
You use delete to destroy an object that was dynamically allocated. Do do so, you form a delete expression with a pointer to that object. You never "delete a pointer". What you really do is "delete an object which is identified by its address".
Now we see why the question makes no sense: A void pointer isn't the "address of an object". It's just an address, without any semantics. It may have come from the address of an actual object, but that information is lost, because it was encoded in the type of the original pointer. The only way to restore an object pointer is to cast the void pointer back to an object pointer (which requires the author to know what the pointer means). void itself is an incomplete type and thus never the type of an object, and a void pointer can never be used to identify an object. (Objects are identified jointly by their type and their address.)
Because char has no special destructor logic. THIS won't work.
class foo
{
~foo() { printf("huzza"); }
}
main()
{
foo * myFoo = new foo();
delete ((void*)foo);
}
The d'ctor won't get called.
A lot of people have already commented saying that no, it's not safe to delete a void pointer. I agree with that, but I also wanted to add that if you're working with void pointers in order to allocate contiguous arrays or something similar, that you can do this with new so that you'll be able to use delete safely (with, ahem, a little of extra work). This is done by allocating a void pointer to the memory region (called an 'arena') and then supplying the pointer to the arena to new. See this section in the C++ FAQ. This is a common approach to implementing memory pools in C++.
If you want to use void*, why don't you use just malloc/free? new/delete is more than just memory managing. Basically, new/delete calls a constructor/destructor and there are more things going on. If you just use built-in types (like char*) and delete them through void*, it would work but still it's not recommended. The bottom line is use malloc/free if you want to use void*. Otherwise, you can use template functions for your convenience.
template<typename T>
T* my_alloc (size_t size)
{
return new T [size];
}
template<typename T>
void my_free (T* ptr)
{
delete [] ptr;
}
int main(void)
{
char* pChar = my_alloc<char>(10);
my_free(pChar);
}
There is hardly a reason to do this.
First of all, if you don't know the type of the data, and all you know is that it's void*, then you really should just be treating that data as a typeless blob of binary data (unsigned char*), and use malloc/free to deal with it. This is required sometimes for things like waveform data and the like, where you need to pass around void* pointers to C apis. That's fine.
If you do know the type of the data (ie it has a ctor/dtor), but for some reason you ended up with a void* pointer (for whatever reason you have) then you really should cast it back to the type you know it to be, and call delete on it.
I have used void*, (aka unknown types) in my framework for while in code reflection and other feats of ambiguity, and so far, I have had no troubles (memory leak, access violations, etc.) from any compilers. Only warnings due to the operation being non-standard.
It perfectly makes sense to delete an unknown (void*). Just make sure the pointer follows these guidelines, or it may stop making sense:
1) The unknown pointer must not point to a type that has a trivial deconstructor, and so when casted as an unknown pointer it should NEVER BE DELETED. Only delete the unknown pointer AFTER casting it back into the ORIGINAL type.
2) Is the instance being referenced as an unknown pointer in stack bound or heap bound memory? If the unknown pointer references an instance on the stack, then it should NEVER BE DELETED!
3) Are you 100% positive the unknown pointer is a valid memory region? No, then it should NEVER BE DELTED!
In all, there is very little direct work that can be done using an unknown (void*) pointer type. However, indirectly, the void* is a great asset for C++ developers to rely on when data ambiguity is required.
If you just want a buffer, use malloc/free.
If you must use new/delete, consider a trivial wrapper class:
template<int size_ > struct size_buffer {
char data_[ size_];
operator void*() { return (void*)&data_; }
};
typedef sized_buffer<100> OpaqueBuffer; // logical description of your sized buffer
OpaqueBuffer* ptr = new OpaqueBuffer();
delete ptr;
For the particular case of char.
char is an intrinsic type that does not have a special destructor. So the leaks arguments is a moot one.
sizeof(char) is usually one so there is no alignment argument either. In the case of rare platform where the sizeof(char) is not one, they allocate memory aligned enough for their char. So the alignment argument is also a moot one.
malloc/free would be faster on this case. But you forfeit std::bad_alloc and have to check the result of malloc. Calling the global new and delete operators might be better as it bypass the middle man.
Related
I see in C++ there are multiple ways to allocate and free data and I understand that when you call malloc you should call free and when you use the new operator you should pair with delete and it is a mistake to mix the two (e.g. Calling free() on something that was created with the new operator), but I'm not clear on when I should use malloc/ free and when I should use new/ delete in my real world programs.
If you're a C++ expert, please let me know any rules of thumb or conventions you follow in this regard.
Unless you are forced to use C, you should never use malloc. Always use new.
If you need a big chunk of data just do something like:
char *pBuffer = new char[1024];
Be careful though this is not correct:
//This is incorrect - may delete only one element, may corrupt the heap, or worse...
delete pBuffer;
Instead you should do this when deleting an array of data:
//This deletes all items in the array
delete[] pBuffer;
The new keyword is the C++ way of doing it, and it will ensure that your type will have its constructor called. The new keyword is also more type-safe whereas malloc is not type-safe at all.
The only way I could think that would be beneficial to use malloc would be if you needed to change the size of your buffer of data. The new keyword does not have an analogous way like realloc. The realloc function might be able to extend the size of a chunk of memory for you more efficiently.
It is worth mentioning that you cannot mix new/free and malloc/delete.
Note: Some answers in this question are invalid.
int* p_scalar = new int(5); // Does not create 5 elements, but initializes to 5
int* p_array = new int[5]; // Creates 5 elements
The short answer is: don't use malloc for C++ without a really good reason for doing so. malloc has a number of deficiencies when used with C++, which new was defined to overcome.
Deficiencies fixed by new for C++ code
malloc is not typesafe in any meaningful way. In C++ you are required to cast the return from void*. This potentially introduces a lot of problems:
#include <stdlib.h>
struct foo {
double d[5];
};
int main() {
foo *f1 = malloc(1); // error, no cast
foo *f2 = static_cast<foo*>(malloc(sizeof(foo)));
foo *f3 = static_cast<foo*>(malloc(1)); // No error, bad
}
It's worse than that though. If the type in question is POD (plain old data) then you can semi-sensibly use malloc to allocate memory for it, as f2 does in the first example.
It's not so obvious though if a type is POD. The fact that it's possible for a given type to change from POD to non-POD with no resulting compiler error and potentially very hard to debug problems is a significant factor. For example if someone (possibly another programmer, during maintenance, much later on were to make a change that caused foo to no longer be POD then no obvious error would appear at compile time as you'd hope, e.g.:
struct foo {
double d[5];
virtual ~foo() { }
};
would make the malloc of f2 also become bad, without any obvious diagnostics. The example here is trivial, but it's possible to accidentally introduce non-PODness much further away (e.g. in a base class, by adding a non-POD member). If you have C++11/boost you can use is_pod to check that this assumption is correct and produce an error if it's not:
#include <type_traits>
#include <stdlib.h>
foo *safe_foo_malloc() {
static_assert(std::is_pod<foo>::value, "foo must be POD");
return static_cast<foo*>(malloc(sizeof(foo)));
}
Although boost is unable to determine if a type is POD without C++11 or some other compiler extensions.
malloc returns NULL if allocation fails. new will throw std::bad_alloc. The behaviour of later using a NULL pointer is undefined. An exception has clean semantics when it is thrown and it is thrown from the source of the error. Wrapping malloc with an appropriate test at every call seems tedious and error prone. (You only have to forget once to undo all that good work). An exception can be allowed to propagate to a level where a caller is able to sensibly process it, where as NULL is much harder to pass back meaningfully. We could extend our safe_foo_malloc function to throw an exception or exit the program or call some handler:
#include <type_traits>
#include <stdlib.h>
void my_malloc_failed_handler();
foo *safe_foo_malloc() {
static_assert(std::is_pod<foo>::value, "foo must be POD");
foo *mem = static_cast<foo*>(malloc(sizeof(foo)));
if (!mem) {
my_malloc_failed_handler();
// or throw ...
}
return mem;
}
Fundamentally malloc is a C feature and new is a C++ feature. As a result malloc does not play nicely with constructors, it only looks at allocating a chunk of bytes. We could extend our safe_foo_malloc further to use placement new:
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <new>
void my_malloc_failed_handler();
foo *safe_foo_malloc() {
void *mem = malloc(sizeof(foo));
if (!mem) {
my_malloc_failed_handler();
// or throw ...
}
return new (mem)foo();
}
Our safe_foo_malloc function isn't very generic - ideally we'd want something that can handle any type, not just foo. We can achieve this with templates and variadic templates for non-default constructors:
#include <functional>
#include <new>
#include <stdlib.h>
void my_malloc_failed_handler();
template <typename T>
struct alloc {
template <typename ...Args>
static T *safe_malloc(Args&&... args) {
void *mem = malloc(sizeof(T));
if (!mem) {
my_malloc_failed_handler();
// or throw ...
}
return new (mem)T(std::forward(args)...);
}
};
Now though in fixing all the issues we identified so far we've practically reinvented the default new operator. If you're going to use malloc and placement new then you might as well just use new to begin with!
From the C++ FQA Lite:
[16.4] Why should I use new instead of
trustworthy old malloc()?
FAQ: new/delete call the
constructor/destructor; new is type
safe, malloc is not; new can be
overridden by a class.
FQA: The virtues of new mentioned by
the FAQ are not virtues, because
constructors, destructors, and
operator overloading are garbage (see
what happens when you have no garbage
collection?), and the type safety
issue is really tiny here (normally
you have to cast the void* returned by
malloc to the right pointer type to
assign it to a typed pointer variable,
which may be annoying, but far from
"unsafe").
Oh, and using trustworthy old malloc
makes it possible to use the equally
trustworthy & old realloc. Too bad we
don't have a shiny new operator renew or something.
Still, new is not bad enough to
justify a deviation from the common
style used throughout a language, even
when the language is C++. In
particular, classes with non-trivial
constructors will misbehave in fatal
ways if you simply malloc the objects.
So why not use new throughout the
code? People rarely overload operator
new, so it probably won't get in your
way too much. And if they do overload
new, you can always ask them to stop.
Sorry, I just couldn't resist. :)
Always use new in C++. If you need a block of untyped memory, you can use operator new directly:
void *p = operator new(size);
...
operator delete(p);
new vs malloc()
1) new is an operator, while malloc() is a function.
2) new calls constructors, while malloc() does not.
3) new returns exact data type, while malloc() returns void *.
4) new never returns a NULL (will throw on failure) while malloc() returns NULL
5) Reallocation of memory not handled by new while malloc() can
To answer your question, you should know the difference between malloc and new. The difference is simple:
malloc allocates memory, while new allocates memory AND calls the constructor of the object you're allocating memory for.
So, unless you're restricted to C, you should never use malloc, especially when dealing with C++ objects. That would be a recipe for breaking your program.
Also the difference between free and delete is quite the same. The difference is that delete will call the destructor of your object in addition to freeing memory.
Use malloc and free only for allocating memory that is going to be managed by c-centric libraries and APIs. Use new and delete (and the [] variants) for everything that you control.
There is one big difference between malloc and new. malloc allocates memory. This is fine for C, because in C, a lump of memory is an object.
In C++, if you're not dealing with POD types (which are similar to C types) you must call a constructor on a memory location to actually have an object there. Non-POD types are very common in C++, as many C++ features make an object automatically non-POD.
new allocates memory and creates an object on that memory location. For non-POD types this means calling a constructor.
If you do something like this:
non_pod_type* p = (non_pod_type*) malloc(sizeof *p);
The pointer you obtain cannot be dereferenced because it does not point to an object. You'd need to call a constructor on it before you can use it (and this is done using placement new).
If, on the other hand, you do:
non_pod_type* p = new non_pod_type();
You get a pointer that is always valid, because new created an object.
Even for POD types, there's a significant difference between the two:
pod_type* p = (pod_type*) malloc(sizeof *p);
std::cout << p->foo;
This piece of code would print an unspecified value, because the POD objects created by malloc are not initialised.
With new, you could specify a constructor to call, and thus get a well defined value.
pod_type* p = new pod_type();
std::cout << p->foo; // prints 0
If you really want it, you can use use new to obtain uninitialised POD objects. See this other answer for more information on that.
Another difference is the behaviour upon failure. When it fails to allocate memory, malloc returns a null pointer, while new throws an exception.
The former requires you to test every pointer returned before using it, while the later will always produce valid pointers.
For these reasons, in C++ code you should use new, and not malloc. But even then, you should not use new "in the open", because it acquires resources you need to release later on. When you use new you should pass its result immediately into a resource managing class:
std::unique_ptr<T> p = std::unique_ptr<T>(new T()); // this won't leak
Dynamic allocation is only required when the life-time of the object should be different than the scope it gets created in (This holds as well for making the scope smaller as larger) and you have a specific reason where storing it by value doesn't work.
For example:
std::vector<int> *createVector(); // Bad
std::vector<int> createVector(); // Good
auto v = new std::vector<int>(); // Bad
auto result = calculate(/*optional output = */ v);
auto v = std::vector<int>(); // Good
auto result = calculate(/*optional output = */ &v);
From C++11 on, we have std::unique_ptr for dealing with allocated memory, which contains the ownership of the allocated memory. std::shared_ptr was created for when you have to share ownership. (you'll need this less than you would expect in a good program)
Creating an instance becomes really easy:
auto instance = std::make_unique<Class>(/*args*/); // C++14
auto instance = std::unique_ptr<Class>(new Class(/*args*/)); // C++11
auto instance = std::make_unique<Class[]>(42); // C++14
auto instance = std::unique_ptr<Class[]>(new Class[](42)); // C++11
C++17 also adds std::optional which can prevent you from requiring memory allocations
auto optInstance = std::optional<Class>{};
if (condition)
optInstance = Class{};
As soon as 'instance' goes out of scope, the memory gets cleaned up. Transferring ownership is also easy:
auto vector = std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Interface>>{};
auto instance = std::make_unique<Class>();
vector.push_back(std::move(instance)); // std::move -> transfer (most of the time)
So when do you still need new? Almost never from C++11 on. Most of the you use std::make_unique until you get to a point where you hit an API that transfers ownership via raw pointers.
auto instance = std::make_unique<Class>();
legacyFunction(instance.release()); // Ownership being transferred
auto instance = std::unique_ptr<Class>{legacyFunction()}; // Ownership being captured in unique_ptr
In C++98/03, you have to do manual memory management. If you are in this case, try upgrading to a more recent version of the standard. If you are stuck:
auto instance = new Class(); // Allocate memory
delete instance; // Deallocate
auto instances = new Class[42](); // Allocate memory
delete[] instances; // Deallocate
Make sure that you track the ownership correctly to not have any memory leaks! Move semantics don't work yet either.
So, when do we need malloc in C++? The only valid reason would be to allocate memory and initialize it later via placement new.
auto instanceBlob = std::malloc(sizeof(Class)); // Allocate memory
auto instance = new(instanceBlob)Class{}; // Initialize via constructor
instance.~Class(); // Destroy via destructor
std::free(instanceBlob); // Deallocate the memory
Even though, the above is valid, this can be done via a new-operator as well. std::vector is a good example for this.
Finally, we still have the elephant in the room: C. If you have to work with a C-library where memory gets allocated in the C++ code and freed in the C code (or the other way around), you are forced to use malloc/free.
If you are in this case, forget about virtual functions, member functions, classes ... Only structs with PODs in it are allowed.
Some exceptions to the rules:
You are writing a standard library with advanced data structures where malloc is appropriate
You have to allocate big amounts of memory (In memory copy of a 10GB file?)
You have tooling preventing you to use certain constructs
You need to store an incomplete type
There are a few things which new does that malloc doesn’t:
new constructs the object by calling the constructor of that object
new doesn’t require typecasting of allocated memory.
It doesn’t require an amount of memory to be allocated, rather it requires a number of
objects to be constructed.
So, if you use malloc, then you need to do above things explicitly, which is not always practical. Additionally, new can be overloaded but malloc can’t be.
If you work with data that doesn't need construction/destruction and requires reallocations (e.g., a large array of ints), then I believe malloc/free is a good choice as it gives you realloc, which is way faster than new-memcpy-delete (it is on my Linux box, but I guess this may be platform dependent). If you work with C++ objects that are not POD and require construction/destruction, then you must use the new and delete operators.
Anyway, I don't see why you shouldn't use both (provided that you free your malloced memory and delete objects allocated with new) if can take advantage of the speed boost (sometimes a significant one, if you're reallocing large arrays of POD) that realloc can give you.
Unless you need it though, you should stick to new/delete in C++.
If you are using C++, try to use new/delete instead of malloc/calloc as they are operators. For malloc/calloc, you need to include another header. Don't mix two different languages in the same code. Their work is similar in every manner, both allocates memory dynamically from heap segment in hash table.
new will initialise the default values of the struct and correctly links the references in it to itself.
E.g.
struct test_s {
int some_strange_name = 1;
int &easy = some_strange_name;
}
So new struct test_s will return an initialised structure with a working reference, while the malloc'ed version has no default values and the intern references aren't initialised.
If you have C code you want to port over to C++, you might leave any malloc() calls in it. For any new C++ code, I'd recommend using new instead.
From a lower perspective, new will initialize all the memory before giving the memory whereas malloc will keep the original content of the memory.
In the following scenario, we can't use new since it calls constructor.
class B {
private:
B *ptr;
int x;
public:
B(int n) {
cout<<"B: ctr"<<endl;
//ptr = new B; //keep calling ctr, result is segmentation fault
ptr = (B *)malloc(sizeof(B));
x = n;
ptr->x = n + 10;
}
~B() {
//delete ptr;
free(ptr);
cout<<"B: dtr"<<endl;
}
};
Rare case to consider using malloc/free instead of new/delete is when you're allocating and then reallocating (simple pod types, not objects) using realloc as there is no similar function to realloc in C++ (although this can be done using a more C++ approach).
I had played before with few C/C++ applications for computer graphics.
After so many time, some things are vanished and I missed them a lot.
The point is, that malloc and new, or free and delete, can work both,
especially for certain basic types, which are the most common.
For instance, a char array, can be allocated both with malloc, or new.
A main difference is, with new you can instantiate a fixed array size.
char* pWord = new char[5]; // allocation of char array of fixed size
You cannot use a variable for the size of the array in this case.
By the contrary, the malloc function could allow a variable size.
int size = 5;
char* pWord = (char*)malloc(size);
In this case, it might be required a conversion cast operator.
For the returned type from malloc it's a pointer to void, not char.
And sometimes the compiler could not know, how to convert this type.
After allocation the memory block, you can set the variable values.
the memset function can be indeed slower for some bigger arrays.
But all the bites must be set first to 0, before assigning a value.
Because the values of an array could have an arbitrary content.
Suppose, the array is assigned with another array of smaller size.
Part of the array element could still have arbitrary content.
And a call to a memset function would be recomended in this case.
memset((void*)pWord, 0, sizeof(pWord) / sizeof(char));
The allocation functions are available for all C packages.
So, these are general functions, that must work for more C types.
And the C++ libraries are extensions of the older C libraries.
Therefore the malloc function returns a generic void* pointer.
The sructures do not have defined a new, or a delete operator.
In this case, a custom variable can be allocated with malloc.
The new and delete keywords are actually some defined C operators.
Maybe a custom union, or class, can have defined these operators.
If new and delete are not defined in a class, these may not work.
But if a class is derived from another, which has these operators,
the new and delete keywords can have the basic class behavior.
About freeing an array, free can be only used in pair with malloc.
Cannot allocate a variable with malloc, and then free with delete.
The simple delete operator references just first item of an array.
Because the pWord array can be also written as:
pWord = &pWord[0]; // or *pWord = pWord[0];
When an array must be deleted, use the delete[] operator instead:
delete[] pWord;
Casts are not bad, they just don't work for all the variable types.
A conversion cast is also an operator function, that must be defined.
If this operator is not defined for a certain type, it may not work.
But not all the errors are because of this conversion cast operator.
Also a cast to a void pointer must be used when using a free call.
This is because the argument of the free function is a void pointer.
free((void*)pWord);
Some errors can arise, because the size of the array is too small.
But this is another story, it is not because of using the cast.
With kind regards, Adrian Brinas
The new and delete operators can operate on classes and structures, whereas malloc and free only work with blocks of memory that need to be cast.
Using new/delete will help to improve your code as you will not need to cast allocated memory to the required data structure.
malloc() is used to dynamically assign memory in C
while the same work is done by new() in c++.
So you cannot mix coding conventions of 2 languages.
It would be good if you asked for difference between calloc and malloc()
I see in C++ there are multiple ways to allocate and free data and I understand that when you call malloc you should call free and when you use the new operator you should pair with delete and it is a mistake to mix the two (e.g. Calling free() on something that was created with the new operator), but I'm not clear on when I should use malloc/ free and when I should use new/ delete in my real world programs.
If you're a C++ expert, please let me know any rules of thumb or conventions you follow in this regard.
Unless you are forced to use C, you should never use malloc. Always use new.
If you need a big chunk of data just do something like:
char *pBuffer = new char[1024];
Be careful though this is not correct:
//This is incorrect - may delete only one element, may corrupt the heap, or worse...
delete pBuffer;
Instead you should do this when deleting an array of data:
//This deletes all items in the array
delete[] pBuffer;
The new keyword is the C++ way of doing it, and it will ensure that your type will have its constructor called. The new keyword is also more type-safe whereas malloc is not type-safe at all.
The only way I could think that would be beneficial to use malloc would be if you needed to change the size of your buffer of data. The new keyword does not have an analogous way like realloc. The realloc function might be able to extend the size of a chunk of memory for you more efficiently.
It is worth mentioning that you cannot mix new/free and malloc/delete.
Note: Some answers in this question are invalid.
int* p_scalar = new int(5); // Does not create 5 elements, but initializes to 5
int* p_array = new int[5]; // Creates 5 elements
The short answer is: don't use malloc for C++ without a really good reason for doing so. malloc has a number of deficiencies when used with C++, which new was defined to overcome.
Deficiencies fixed by new for C++ code
malloc is not typesafe in any meaningful way. In C++ you are required to cast the return from void*. This potentially introduces a lot of problems:
#include <stdlib.h>
struct foo {
double d[5];
};
int main() {
foo *f1 = malloc(1); // error, no cast
foo *f2 = static_cast<foo*>(malloc(sizeof(foo)));
foo *f3 = static_cast<foo*>(malloc(1)); // No error, bad
}
It's worse than that though. If the type in question is POD (plain old data) then you can semi-sensibly use malloc to allocate memory for it, as f2 does in the first example.
It's not so obvious though if a type is POD. The fact that it's possible for a given type to change from POD to non-POD with no resulting compiler error and potentially very hard to debug problems is a significant factor. For example if someone (possibly another programmer, during maintenance, much later on were to make a change that caused foo to no longer be POD then no obvious error would appear at compile time as you'd hope, e.g.:
struct foo {
double d[5];
virtual ~foo() { }
};
would make the malloc of f2 also become bad, without any obvious diagnostics. The example here is trivial, but it's possible to accidentally introduce non-PODness much further away (e.g. in a base class, by adding a non-POD member). If you have C++11/boost you can use is_pod to check that this assumption is correct and produce an error if it's not:
#include <type_traits>
#include <stdlib.h>
foo *safe_foo_malloc() {
static_assert(std::is_pod<foo>::value, "foo must be POD");
return static_cast<foo*>(malloc(sizeof(foo)));
}
Although boost is unable to determine if a type is POD without C++11 or some other compiler extensions.
malloc returns NULL if allocation fails. new will throw std::bad_alloc. The behaviour of later using a NULL pointer is undefined. An exception has clean semantics when it is thrown and it is thrown from the source of the error. Wrapping malloc with an appropriate test at every call seems tedious and error prone. (You only have to forget once to undo all that good work). An exception can be allowed to propagate to a level where a caller is able to sensibly process it, where as NULL is much harder to pass back meaningfully. We could extend our safe_foo_malloc function to throw an exception or exit the program or call some handler:
#include <type_traits>
#include <stdlib.h>
void my_malloc_failed_handler();
foo *safe_foo_malloc() {
static_assert(std::is_pod<foo>::value, "foo must be POD");
foo *mem = static_cast<foo*>(malloc(sizeof(foo)));
if (!mem) {
my_malloc_failed_handler();
// or throw ...
}
return mem;
}
Fundamentally malloc is a C feature and new is a C++ feature. As a result malloc does not play nicely with constructors, it only looks at allocating a chunk of bytes. We could extend our safe_foo_malloc further to use placement new:
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <new>
void my_malloc_failed_handler();
foo *safe_foo_malloc() {
void *mem = malloc(sizeof(foo));
if (!mem) {
my_malloc_failed_handler();
// or throw ...
}
return new (mem)foo();
}
Our safe_foo_malloc function isn't very generic - ideally we'd want something that can handle any type, not just foo. We can achieve this with templates and variadic templates for non-default constructors:
#include <functional>
#include <new>
#include <stdlib.h>
void my_malloc_failed_handler();
template <typename T>
struct alloc {
template <typename ...Args>
static T *safe_malloc(Args&&... args) {
void *mem = malloc(sizeof(T));
if (!mem) {
my_malloc_failed_handler();
// or throw ...
}
return new (mem)T(std::forward(args)...);
}
};
Now though in fixing all the issues we identified so far we've practically reinvented the default new operator. If you're going to use malloc and placement new then you might as well just use new to begin with!
From the C++ FQA Lite:
[16.4] Why should I use new instead of
trustworthy old malloc()?
FAQ: new/delete call the
constructor/destructor; new is type
safe, malloc is not; new can be
overridden by a class.
FQA: The virtues of new mentioned by
the FAQ are not virtues, because
constructors, destructors, and
operator overloading are garbage (see
what happens when you have no garbage
collection?), and the type safety
issue is really tiny here (normally
you have to cast the void* returned by
malloc to the right pointer type to
assign it to a typed pointer variable,
which may be annoying, but far from
"unsafe").
Oh, and using trustworthy old malloc
makes it possible to use the equally
trustworthy & old realloc. Too bad we
don't have a shiny new operator renew or something.
Still, new is not bad enough to
justify a deviation from the common
style used throughout a language, even
when the language is C++. In
particular, classes with non-trivial
constructors will misbehave in fatal
ways if you simply malloc the objects.
So why not use new throughout the
code? People rarely overload operator
new, so it probably won't get in your
way too much. And if they do overload
new, you can always ask them to stop.
Sorry, I just couldn't resist. :)
Always use new in C++. If you need a block of untyped memory, you can use operator new directly:
void *p = operator new(size);
...
operator delete(p);
new vs malloc()
1) new is an operator, while malloc() is a function.
2) new calls constructors, while malloc() does not.
3) new returns exact data type, while malloc() returns void *.
4) new never returns a NULL (will throw on failure) while malloc() returns NULL
5) Reallocation of memory not handled by new while malloc() can
To answer your question, you should know the difference between malloc and new. The difference is simple:
malloc allocates memory, while new allocates memory AND calls the constructor of the object you're allocating memory for.
So, unless you're restricted to C, you should never use malloc, especially when dealing with C++ objects. That would be a recipe for breaking your program.
Also the difference between free and delete is quite the same. The difference is that delete will call the destructor of your object in addition to freeing memory.
Use malloc and free only for allocating memory that is going to be managed by c-centric libraries and APIs. Use new and delete (and the [] variants) for everything that you control.
There is one big difference between malloc and new. malloc allocates memory. This is fine for C, because in C, a lump of memory is an object.
In C++, if you're not dealing with POD types (which are similar to C types) you must call a constructor on a memory location to actually have an object there. Non-POD types are very common in C++, as many C++ features make an object automatically non-POD.
new allocates memory and creates an object on that memory location. For non-POD types this means calling a constructor.
If you do something like this:
non_pod_type* p = (non_pod_type*) malloc(sizeof *p);
The pointer you obtain cannot be dereferenced because it does not point to an object. You'd need to call a constructor on it before you can use it (and this is done using placement new).
If, on the other hand, you do:
non_pod_type* p = new non_pod_type();
You get a pointer that is always valid, because new created an object.
Even for POD types, there's a significant difference between the two:
pod_type* p = (pod_type*) malloc(sizeof *p);
std::cout << p->foo;
This piece of code would print an unspecified value, because the POD objects created by malloc are not initialised.
With new, you could specify a constructor to call, and thus get a well defined value.
pod_type* p = new pod_type();
std::cout << p->foo; // prints 0
If you really want it, you can use use new to obtain uninitialised POD objects. See this other answer for more information on that.
Another difference is the behaviour upon failure. When it fails to allocate memory, malloc returns a null pointer, while new throws an exception.
The former requires you to test every pointer returned before using it, while the later will always produce valid pointers.
For these reasons, in C++ code you should use new, and not malloc. But even then, you should not use new "in the open", because it acquires resources you need to release later on. When you use new you should pass its result immediately into a resource managing class:
std::unique_ptr<T> p = std::unique_ptr<T>(new T()); // this won't leak
Dynamic allocation is only required when the life-time of the object should be different than the scope it gets created in (This holds as well for making the scope smaller as larger) and you have a specific reason where storing it by value doesn't work.
For example:
std::vector<int> *createVector(); // Bad
std::vector<int> createVector(); // Good
auto v = new std::vector<int>(); // Bad
auto result = calculate(/*optional output = */ v);
auto v = std::vector<int>(); // Good
auto result = calculate(/*optional output = */ &v);
From C++11 on, we have std::unique_ptr for dealing with allocated memory, which contains the ownership of the allocated memory. std::shared_ptr was created for when you have to share ownership. (you'll need this less than you would expect in a good program)
Creating an instance becomes really easy:
auto instance = std::make_unique<Class>(/*args*/); // C++14
auto instance = std::unique_ptr<Class>(new Class(/*args*/)); // C++11
auto instance = std::make_unique<Class[]>(42); // C++14
auto instance = std::unique_ptr<Class[]>(new Class[](42)); // C++11
C++17 also adds std::optional which can prevent you from requiring memory allocations
auto optInstance = std::optional<Class>{};
if (condition)
optInstance = Class{};
As soon as 'instance' goes out of scope, the memory gets cleaned up. Transferring ownership is also easy:
auto vector = std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Interface>>{};
auto instance = std::make_unique<Class>();
vector.push_back(std::move(instance)); // std::move -> transfer (most of the time)
So when do you still need new? Almost never from C++11 on. Most of the you use std::make_unique until you get to a point where you hit an API that transfers ownership via raw pointers.
auto instance = std::make_unique<Class>();
legacyFunction(instance.release()); // Ownership being transferred
auto instance = std::unique_ptr<Class>{legacyFunction()}; // Ownership being captured in unique_ptr
In C++98/03, you have to do manual memory management. If you are in this case, try upgrading to a more recent version of the standard. If you are stuck:
auto instance = new Class(); // Allocate memory
delete instance; // Deallocate
auto instances = new Class[42](); // Allocate memory
delete[] instances; // Deallocate
Make sure that you track the ownership correctly to not have any memory leaks! Move semantics don't work yet either.
So, when do we need malloc in C++? The only valid reason would be to allocate memory and initialize it later via placement new.
auto instanceBlob = std::malloc(sizeof(Class)); // Allocate memory
auto instance = new(instanceBlob)Class{}; // Initialize via constructor
instance.~Class(); // Destroy via destructor
std::free(instanceBlob); // Deallocate the memory
Even though, the above is valid, this can be done via a new-operator as well. std::vector is a good example for this.
Finally, we still have the elephant in the room: C. If you have to work with a C-library where memory gets allocated in the C++ code and freed in the C code (or the other way around), you are forced to use malloc/free.
If you are in this case, forget about virtual functions, member functions, classes ... Only structs with PODs in it are allowed.
Some exceptions to the rules:
You are writing a standard library with advanced data structures where malloc is appropriate
You have to allocate big amounts of memory (In memory copy of a 10GB file?)
You have tooling preventing you to use certain constructs
You need to store an incomplete type
There are a few things which new does that malloc doesn’t:
new constructs the object by calling the constructor of that object
new doesn’t require typecasting of allocated memory.
It doesn’t require an amount of memory to be allocated, rather it requires a number of
objects to be constructed.
So, if you use malloc, then you need to do above things explicitly, which is not always practical. Additionally, new can be overloaded but malloc can’t be.
If you work with data that doesn't need construction/destruction and requires reallocations (e.g., a large array of ints), then I believe malloc/free is a good choice as it gives you realloc, which is way faster than new-memcpy-delete (it is on my Linux box, but I guess this may be platform dependent). If you work with C++ objects that are not POD and require construction/destruction, then you must use the new and delete operators.
Anyway, I don't see why you shouldn't use both (provided that you free your malloced memory and delete objects allocated with new) if can take advantage of the speed boost (sometimes a significant one, if you're reallocing large arrays of POD) that realloc can give you.
Unless you need it though, you should stick to new/delete in C++.
If you are using C++, try to use new/delete instead of malloc/calloc as they are operators. For malloc/calloc, you need to include another header. Don't mix two different languages in the same code. Their work is similar in every manner, both allocates memory dynamically from heap segment in hash table.
new will initialise the default values of the struct and correctly links the references in it to itself.
E.g.
struct test_s {
int some_strange_name = 1;
int &easy = some_strange_name;
}
So new struct test_s will return an initialised structure with a working reference, while the malloc'ed version has no default values and the intern references aren't initialised.
If you have C code you want to port over to C++, you might leave any malloc() calls in it. For any new C++ code, I'd recommend using new instead.
From a lower perspective, new will initialize all the memory before giving the memory whereas malloc will keep the original content of the memory.
In the following scenario, we can't use new since it calls constructor.
class B {
private:
B *ptr;
int x;
public:
B(int n) {
cout<<"B: ctr"<<endl;
//ptr = new B; //keep calling ctr, result is segmentation fault
ptr = (B *)malloc(sizeof(B));
x = n;
ptr->x = n + 10;
}
~B() {
//delete ptr;
free(ptr);
cout<<"B: dtr"<<endl;
}
};
Rare case to consider using malloc/free instead of new/delete is when you're allocating and then reallocating (simple pod types, not objects) using realloc as there is no similar function to realloc in C++ (although this can be done using a more C++ approach).
I had played before with few C/C++ applications for computer graphics.
After so many time, some things are vanished and I missed them a lot.
The point is, that malloc and new, or free and delete, can work both,
especially for certain basic types, which are the most common.
For instance, a char array, can be allocated both with malloc, or new.
A main difference is, with new you can instantiate a fixed array size.
char* pWord = new char[5]; // allocation of char array of fixed size
You cannot use a variable for the size of the array in this case.
By the contrary, the malloc function could allow a variable size.
int size = 5;
char* pWord = (char*)malloc(size);
In this case, it might be required a conversion cast operator.
For the returned type from malloc it's a pointer to void, not char.
And sometimes the compiler could not know, how to convert this type.
After allocation the memory block, you can set the variable values.
the memset function can be indeed slower for some bigger arrays.
But all the bites must be set first to 0, before assigning a value.
Because the values of an array could have an arbitrary content.
Suppose, the array is assigned with another array of smaller size.
Part of the array element could still have arbitrary content.
And a call to a memset function would be recomended in this case.
memset((void*)pWord, 0, sizeof(pWord) / sizeof(char));
The allocation functions are available for all C packages.
So, these are general functions, that must work for more C types.
And the C++ libraries are extensions of the older C libraries.
Therefore the malloc function returns a generic void* pointer.
The sructures do not have defined a new, or a delete operator.
In this case, a custom variable can be allocated with malloc.
The new and delete keywords are actually some defined C operators.
Maybe a custom union, or class, can have defined these operators.
If new and delete are not defined in a class, these may not work.
But if a class is derived from another, which has these operators,
the new and delete keywords can have the basic class behavior.
About freeing an array, free can be only used in pair with malloc.
Cannot allocate a variable with malloc, and then free with delete.
The simple delete operator references just first item of an array.
Because the pWord array can be also written as:
pWord = &pWord[0]; // or *pWord = pWord[0];
When an array must be deleted, use the delete[] operator instead:
delete[] pWord;
Casts are not bad, they just don't work for all the variable types.
A conversion cast is also an operator function, that must be defined.
If this operator is not defined for a certain type, it may not work.
But not all the errors are because of this conversion cast operator.
Also a cast to a void pointer must be used when using a free call.
This is because the argument of the free function is a void pointer.
free((void*)pWord);
Some errors can arise, because the size of the array is too small.
But this is another story, it is not because of using the cast.
With kind regards, Adrian Brinas
The new and delete operators can operate on classes and structures, whereas malloc and free only work with blocks of memory that need to be cast.
Using new/delete will help to improve your code as you will not need to cast allocated memory to the required data structure.
malloc() is used to dynamically assign memory in C
while the same work is done by new() in c++.
So you cannot mix coding conventions of 2 languages.
It would be good if you asked for difference between calloc and malloc()
shared_ptr<void> t(new char[num])
means memory leak?
If so, what is the correct practice in this case.
should I use shared_array<> instead?
I'm editing the bytes pointed by 't' manually for later transfer in a TCP Stream.
means memory leak?
No, it means undefined behavior. (Which could have any symptom, including memory leak.) The call to delete must match the call to new. Yours doesn't. You allocate with new[] but destroy with delete.
If so, what is the correct practice in this case. Should I use shared_array<> instead?
There are two easy choices. You can use shared_array:
shared_array<char> t(new char[num])
t[7] = 42;
Or, you could use a shared_ptr to a std::vector:
shared_ptr<std::vector<char> > t(new std::vector<char>(num))
(*t)[7] = 42;
EDIT: Thanks to #Dennis Zickefoose for gently pointing out an error in my thinking. Parts of my answer are rewritten.
As I see the void You mention in the Q is a typo, Since Calling delete on a void * is guaranteed Undefined Behavior by the Standard.
For another data type,
You will have to provide your custom deletor to the shared_ptr so you can call delete [].
Eg:
For example:
template<typename T>
struct Customdeleter
{
void operator()(T* p)
{
delete [] p;
}
};
And invoke as:
shared_ptr<char> sp(new char[num], Customdeleter<char>());
EDIT:
Since you clarified are using Boost in comments and not TR1(AFAIK TR1 doesn't have shared_array)
You can use shared_array:
shared_array<char> sp(new char[num])
I think I see where you're coming from - you want void * pointers so you can later cast it to the final type you're serializing. But as others have pointed out, you can't delete a void* pointer, and neither can the code for shared_ptr.
Since you're allocating an array of char, that should be the type of smart pointer you use:
shared_array<char> t(new char[num]);
Casting the raw char pointer to another type shouldn't be any more of a problem than casting a void* pointer.
You're calling delete on void* which is undefined behavior.
the reason I'm using a void* is because I'm allocating 'num' bytes for storage of different types of variables, like the first 4 bytes represent a double, next 2 bytes are short..
Use a struct or union then.
I don't know if C++11 has a shared_array, but Boost does — you should use that instead.
There are many questions discussing the details of C and C++ dealing with pointer-to-const deletion, namely that free() does not accept them and that delete and delete[] do and that constness doesn't prevent object destruction.
What I am interested on is whether you think it is a good practice to do so, not what the languages (C and C++) allow.
Arguments for pointer-to-const deletion include:
Linus Torvalds' kfree(), unlike C's free(), takes a void const* argument because he thinks that freeing the memory does not affect what is pointed to.
free() was designed before the introduction of the const keyword.
C++'s delete operators allow deletion of const data.
Arguments against it include:
Programmers do not expect data to be modified (or deleted) when they pass a pointer-to-const to it.
Many think that pointer-to-const implies not getting ownership of the data (but not that non-const would imply getting ownership).
This is the common practice seen in most libraries and existing code.
Please argument well in your responses and possibly refer to authorities. My intention is not to start a poll here.
It is a good practice to use the proper strategy to end the lifetime of an object. For dynamic objects this means delete what you new, free what you malloc, and so forth. Whether that object is const or not has no affect on whether its lifetime should end.
Being constant or volatile are properties that exist within an object's lifetime, and that ends with a delete-expression or a call to free. Regardless of your own views on the matter or how things work in other languages, this is how C++'s object model works. A simple example to show this is how the language translates delete-expressions into operator delete calls:
#include <new>
void* operator new(std::size_t size);
void operator delete(void* p);
int main() {
delete new int(); // int* to void*, since this is also an allowed
// implicit conversion, it may not be clear what is happening
// however, these are clearly not implicit conversions:
delete new int const(); // int const * to void*
delete new int volatile(); // int volatile* to void*
delete new int const volatile(); // int const volatile* to void*
}
Another example, but perhaps less clear, is why you cannot overload ctors on const:
struct S {
S() const; // not allowed
};
An object is only const after it is created (aka its lifetime begins; happens when the ctor returns normally) and before it is destroyed (aka its lifetime ends; happens as the dtor is entered). Before or after that lifetime you may have a pointer of type T const* (for example), but it does not point to an object and dereferencing it is UB.
The same line of reasoning applies to C, except you have to consider that C has roughly 40 years of history and has succeeded in maintaining a large amount of consistency for much of that time.
(I believe this question is subjective and argumentative and would vote to close it that way, except I apparently helped spark the discussion; so answering as CW.)
I've never really understood the arguments against deleting (or freeing) a const pointer. More precisely, I somewhat see the rational but it seems to me that they apply equally well to a const member in an object or a const variable in a bloc, and I've never see anybody argue that those should not be destroyed and their memory freed when the containing object is deleted or the execution leaves their containing block.
The two issues of managing the logical mutability of objects (i.e. const or not) and managing their life length (i.e. use an object variable, a smart pointer -- which and one -- or a raw pointer) seems unrelated to me.
In other words, if
{
Foo const x;
...
}
is valid and good style. Why would
{
Foo const* xptr = new Foo;
...
delete xptr;
}
not be good style (using an adequate smart pointer instead of a raw one, but that is another issue).
Well, here's some relevant stuff possibly too long to fit into a comment:
Some time ago the practice to free memory via a pointer-to-const was plain forbidden, see this dr. Dobb's article, the "Language Law" ( :)) part.
There has twice been a relevant discussion on http://groups.google.ru/group/comp.lang.c++.moderated: "Delete a const pointer?", "Why can operator delete be called on a const pointer" (both actually deal with the case in question, i.e. pointer to const).
My own point (since you are asking for arguments): possibility of the operation in question in any given context is defined by the (explicitly or implicitly defined in the documentation) contract of a class or a function, not by just the method signature or parameter types.
Constness and lifetime are two different things. I see no problem freeing a const object if the owner of that object decides the object has no reason to live (the same way a const object that's a local will get 'deallocated' when it goes out of scope).
As far as free() not taking a const pointer, I think that one could argue either that that might have been an oversight of the standards committee or that that's because it takes the same kind if pointer that malloc() returns.
I see in C++ there are multiple ways to allocate and free data and I understand that when you call malloc you should call free and when you use the new operator you should pair with delete and it is a mistake to mix the two (e.g. Calling free() on something that was created with the new operator), but I'm not clear on when I should use malloc/ free and when I should use new/ delete in my real world programs.
If you're a C++ expert, please let me know any rules of thumb or conventions you follow in this regard.
Unless you are forced to use C, you should never use malloc. Always use new.
If you need a big chunk of data just do something like:
char *pBuffer = new char[1024];
Be careful though this is not correct:
//This is incorrect - may delete only one element, may corrupt the heap, or worse...
delete pBuffer;
Instead you should do this when deleting an array of data:
//This deletes all items in the array
delete[] pBuffer;
The new keyword is the C++ way of doing it, and it will ensure that your type will have its constructor called. The new keyword is also more type-safe whereas malloc is not type-safe at all.
The only way I could think that would be beneficial to use malloc would be if you needed to change the size of your buffer of data. The new keyword does not have an analogous way like realloc. The realloc function might be able to extend the size of a chunk of memory for you more efficiently.
It is worth mentioning that you cannot mix new/free and malloc/delete.
Note: Some answers in this question are invalid.
int* p_scalar = new int(5); // Does not create 5 elements, but initializes to 5
int* p_array = new int[5]; // Creates 5 elements
The short answer is: don't use malloc for C++ without a really good reason for doing so. malloc has a number of deficiencies when used with C++, which new was defined to overcome.
Deficiencies fixed by new for C++ code
malloc is not typesafe in any meaningful way. In C++ you are required to cast the return from void*. This potentially introduces a lot of problems:
#include <stdlib.h>
struct foo {
double d[5];
};
int main() {
foo *f1 = malloc(1); // error, no cast
foo *f2 = static_cast<foo*>(malloc(sizeof(foo)));
foo *f3 = static_cast<foo*>(malloc(1)); // No error, bad
}
It's worse than that though. If the type in question is POD (plain old data) then you can semi-sensibly use malloc to allocate memory for it, as f2 does in the first example.
It's not so obvious though if a type is POD. The fact that it's possible for a given type to change from POD to non-POD with no resulting compiler error and potentially very hard to debug problems is a significant factor. For example if someone (possibly another programmer, during maintenance, much later on were to make a change that caused foo to no longer be POD then no obvious error would appear at compile time as you'd hope, e.g.:
struct foo {
double d[5];
virtual ~foo() { }
};
would make the malloc of f2 also become bad, without any obvious diagnostics. The example here is trivial, but it's possible to accidentally introduce non-PODness much further away (e.g. in a base class, by adding a non-POD member). If you have C++11/boost you can use is_pod to check that this assumption is correct and produce an error if it's not:
#include <type_traits>
#include <stdlib.h>
foo *safe_foo_malloc() {
static_assert(std::is_pod<foo>::value, "foo must be POD");
return static_cast<foo*>(malloc(sizeof(foo)));
}
Although boost is unable to determine if a type is POD without C++11 or some other compiler extensions.
malloc returns NULL if allocation fails. new will throw std::bad_alloc. The behaviour of later using a NULL pointer is undefined. An exception has clean semantics when it is thrown and it is thrown from the source of the error. Wrapping malloc with an appropriate test at every call seems tedious and error prone. (You only have to forget once to undo all that good work). An exception can be allowed to propagate to a level where a caller is able to sensibly process it, where as NULL is much harder to pass back meaningfully. We could extend our safe_foo_malloc function to throw an exception or exit the program or call some handler:
#include <type_traits>
#include <stdlib.h>
void my_malloc_failed_handler();
foo *safe_foo_malloc() {
static_assert(std::is_pod<foo>::value, "foo must be POD");
foo *mem = static_cast<foo*>(malloc(sizeof(foo)));
if (!mem) {
my_malloc_failed_handler();
// or throw ...
}
return mem;
}
Fundamentally malloc is a C feature and new is a C++ feature. As a result malloc does not play nicely with constructors, it only looks at allocating a chunk of bytes. We could extend our safe_foo_malloc further to use placement new:
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <new>
void my_malloc_failed_handler();
foo *safe_foo_malloc() {
void *mem = malloc(sizeof(foo));
if (!mem) {
my_malloc_failed_handler();
// or throw ...
}
return new (mem)foo();
}
Our safe_foo_malloc function isn't very generic - ideally we'd want something that can handle any type, not just foo. We can achieve this with templates and variadic templates for non-default constructors:
#include <functional>
#include <new>
#include <stdlib.h>
void my_malloc_failed_handler();
template <typename T>
struct alloc {
template <typename ...Args>
static T *safe_malloc(Args&&... args) {
void *mem = malloc(sizeof(T));
if (!mem) {
my_malloc_failed_handler();
// or throw ...
}
return new (mem)T(std::forward(args)...);
}
};
Now though in fixing all the issues we identified so far we've practically reinvented the default new operator. If you're going to use malloc and placement new then you might as well just use new to begin with!
From the C++ FQA Lite:
[16.4] Why should I use new instead of
trustworthy old malloc()?
FAQ: new/delete call the
constructor/destructor; new is type
safe, malloc is not; new can be
overridden by a class.
FQA: The virtues of new mentioned by
the FAQ are not virtues, because
constructors, destructors, and
operator overloading are garbage (see
what happens when you have no garbage
collection?), and the type safety
issue is really tiny here (normally
you have to cast the void* returned by
malloc to the right pointer type to
assign it to a typed pointer variable,
which may be annoying, but far from
"unsafe").
Oh, and using trustworthy old malloc
makes it possible to use the equally
trustworthy & old realloc. Too bad we
don't have a shiny new operator renew or something.
Still, new is not bad enough to
justify a deviation from the common
style used throughout a language, even
when the language is C++. In
particular, classes with non-trivial
constructors will misbehave in fatal
ways if you simply malloc the objects.
So why not use new throughout the
code? People rarely overload operator
new, so it probably won't get in your
way too much. And if they do overload
new, you can always ask them to stop.
Sorry, I just couldn't resist. :)
Always use new in C++. If you need a block of untyped memory, you can use operator new directly:
void *p = operator new(size);
...
operator delete(p);
new vs malloc()
1) new is an operator, while malloc() is a function.
2) new calls constructors, while malloc() does not.
3) new returns exact data type, while malloc() returns void *.
4) new never returns a NULL (will throw on failure) while malloc() returns NULL
5) Reallocation of memory not handled by new while malloc() can
To answer your question, you should know the difference between malloc and new. The difference is simple:
malloc allocates memory, while new allocates memory AND calls the constructor of the object you're allocating memory for.
So, unless you're restricted to C, you should never use malloc, especially when dealing with C++ objects. That would be a recipe for breaking your program.
Also the difference between free and delete is quite the same. The difference is that delete will call the destructor of your object in addition to freeing memory.
Use malloc and free only for allocating memory that is going to be managed by c-centric libraries and APIs. Use new and delete (and the [] variants) for everything that you control.
There is one big difference between malloc and new. malloc allocates memory. This is fine for C, because in C, a lump of memory is an object.
In C++, if you're not dealing with POD types (which are similar to C types) you must call a constructor on a memory location to actually have an object there. Non-POD types are very common in C++, as many C++ features make an object automatically non-POD.
new allocates memory and creates an object on that memory location. For non-POD types this means calling a constructor.
If you do something like this:
non_pod_type* p = (non_pod_type*) malloc(sizeof *p);
The pointer you obtain cannot be dereferenced because it does not point to an object. You'd need to call a constructor on it before you can use it (and this is done using placement new).
If, on the other hand, you do:
non_pod_type* p = new non_pod_type();
You get a pointer that is always valid, because new created an object.
Even for POD types, there's a significant difference between the two:
pod_type* p = (pod_type*) malloc(sizeof *p);
std::cout << p->foo;
This piece of code would print an unspecified value, because the POD objects created by malloc are not initialised.
With new, you could specify a constructor to call, and thus get a well defined value.
pod_type* p = new pod_type();
std::cout << p->foo; // prints 0
If you really want it, you can use use new to obtain uninitialised POD objects. See this other answer for more information on that.
Another difference is the behaviour upon failure. When it fails to allocate memory, malloc returns a null pointer, while new throws an exception.
The former requires you to test every pointer returned before using it, while the later will always produce valid pointers.
For these reasons, in C++ code you should use new, and not malloc. But even then, you should not use new "in the open", because it acquires resources you need to release later on. When you use new you should pass its result immediately into a resource managing class:
std::unique_ptr<T> p = std::unique_ptr<T>(new T()); // this won't leak
Dynamic allocation is only required when the life-time of the object should be different than the scope it gets created in (This holds as well for making the scope smaller as larger) and you have a specific reason where storing it by value doesn't work.
For example:
std::vector<int> *createVector(); // Bad
std::vector<int> createVector(); // Good
auto v = new std::vector<int>(); // Bad
auto result = calculate(/*optional output = */ v);
auto v = std::vector<int>(); // Good
auto result = calculate(/*optional output = */ &v);
From C++11 on, we have std::unique_ptr for dealing with allocated memory, which contains the ownership of the allocated memory. std::shared_ptr was created for when you have to share ownership. (you'll need this less than you would expect in a good program)
Creating an instance becomes really easy:
auto instance = std::make_unique<Class>(/*args*/); // C++14
auto instance = std::unique_ptr<Class>(new Class(/*args*/)); // C++11
auto instance = std::make_unique<Class[]>(42); // C++14
auto instance = std::unique_ptr<Class[]>(new Class[](42)); // C++11
C++17 also adds std::optional which can prevent you from requiring memory allocations
auto optInstance = std::optional<Class>{};
if (condition)
optInstance = Class{};
As soon as 'instance' goes out of scope, the memory gets cleaned up. Transferring ownership is also easy:
auto vector = std::vector<std::unique_ptr<Interface>>{};
auto instance = std::make_unique<Class>();
vector.push_back(std::move(instance)); // std::move -> transfer (most of the time)
So when do you still need new? Almost never from C++11 on. Most of the you use std::make_unique until you get to a point where you hit an API that transfers ownership via raw pointers.
auto instance = std::make_unique<Class>();
legacyFunction(instance.release()); // Ownership being transferred
auto instance = std::unique_ptr<Class>{legacyFunction()}; // Ownership being captured in unique_ptr
In C++98/03, you have to do manual memory management. If you are in this case, try upgrading to a more recent version of the standard. If you are stuck:
auto instance = new Class(); // Allocate memory
delete instance; // Deallocate
auto instances = new Class[42](); // Allocate memory
delete[] instances; // Deallocate
Make sure that you track the ownership correctly to not have any memory leaks! Move semantics don't work yet either.
So, when do we need malloc in C++? The only valid reason would be to allocate memory and initialize it later via placement new.
auto instanceBlob = std::malloc(sizeof(Class)); // Allocate memory
auto instance = new(instanceBlob)Class{}; // Initialize via constructor
instance.~Class(); // Destroy via destructor
std::free(instanceBlob); // Deallocate the memory
Even though, the above is valid, this can be done via a new-operator as well. std::vector is a good example for this.
Finally, we still have the elephant in the room: C. If you have to work with a C-library where memory gets allocated in the C++ code and freed in the C code (or the other way around), you are forced to use malloc/free.
If you are in this case, forget about virtual functions, member functions, classes ... Only structs with PODs in it are allowed.
Some exceptions to the rules:
You are writing a standard library with advanced data structures where malloc is appropriate
You have to allocate big amounts of memory (In memory copy of a 10GB file?)
You have tooling preventing you to use certain constructs
You need to store an incomplete type
There are a few things which new does that malloc doesn’t:
new constructs the object by calling the constructor of that object
new doesn’t require typecasting of allocated memory.
It doesn’t require an amount of memory to be allocated, rather it requires a number of
objects to be constructed.
So, if you use malloc, then you need to do above things explicitly, which is not always practical. Additionally, new can be overloaded but malloc can’t be.
If you work with data that doesn't need construction/destruction and requires reallocations (e.g., a large array of ints), then I believe malloc/free is a good choice as it gives you realloc, which is way faster than new-memcpy-delete (it is on my Linux box, but I guess this may be platform dependent). If you work with C++ objects that are not POD and require construction/destruction, then you must use the new and delete operators.
Anyway, I don't see why you shouldn't use both (provided that you free your malloced memory and delete objects allocated with new) if can take advantage of the speed boost (sometimes a significant one, if you're reallocing large arrays of POD) that realloc can give you.
Unless you need it though, you should stick to new/delete in C++.
If you are using C++, try to use new/delete instead of malloc/calloc as they are operators. For malloc/calloc, you need to include another header. Don't mix two different languages in the same code. Their work is similar in every manner, both allocates memory dynamically from heap segment in hash table.
new will initialise the default values of the struct and correctly links the references in it to itself.
E.g.
struct test_s {
int some_strange_name = 1;
int &easy = some_strange_name;
}
So new struct test_s will return an initialised structure with a working reference, while the malloc'ed version has no default values and the intern references aren't initialised.
If you have C code you want to port over to C++, you might leave any malloc() calls in it. For any new C++ code, I'd recommend using new instead.
From a lower perspective, new will initialize all the memory before giving the memory whereas malloc will keep the original content of the memory.
In the following scenario, we can't use new since it calls constructor.
class B {
private:
B *ptr;
int x;
public:
B(int n) {
cout<<"B: ctr"<<endl;
//ptr = new B; //keep calling ctr, result is segmentation fault
ptr = (B *)malloc(sizeof(B));
x = n;
ptr->x = n + 10;
}
~B() {
//delete ptr;
free(ptr);
cout<<"B: dtr"<<endl;
}
};
Rare case to consider using malloc/free instead of new/delete is when you're allocating and then reallocating (simple pod types, not objects) using realloc as there is no similar function to realloc in C++ (although this can be done using a more C++ approach).
I had played before with few C/C++ applications for computer graphics.
After so many time, some things are vanished and I missed them a lot.
The point is, that malloc and new, or free and delete, can work both,
especially for certain basic types, which are the most common.
For instance, a char array, can be allocated both with malloc, or new.
A main difference is, with new you can instantiate a fixed array size.
char* pWord = new char[5]; // allocation of char array of fixed size
You cannot use a variable for the size of the array in this case.
By the contrary, the malloc function could allow a variable size.
int size = 5;
char* pWord = (char*)malloc(size);
In this case, it might be required a conversion cast operator.
For the returned type from malloc it's a pointer to void, not char.
And sometimes the compiler could not know, how to convert this type.
After allocation the memory block, you can set the variable values.
the memset function can be indeed slower for some bigger arrays.
But all the bites must be set first to 0, before assigning a value.
Because the values of an array could have an arbitrary content.
Suppose, the array is assigned with another array of smaller size.
Part of the array element could still have arbitrary content.
And a call to a memset function would be recomended in this case.
memset((void*)pWord, 0, sizeof(pWord) / sizeof(char));
The allocation functions are available for all C packages.
So, these are general functions, that must work for more C types.
And the C++ libraries are extensions of the older C libraries.
Therefore the malloc function returns a generic void* pointer.
The sructures do not have defined a new, or a delete operator.
In this case, a custom variable can be allocated with malloc.
The new and delete keywords are actually some defined C operators.
Maybe a custom union, or class, can have defined these operators.
If new and delete are not defined in a class, these may not work.
But if a class is derived from another, which has these operators,
the new and delete keywords can have the basic class behavior.
About freeing an array, free can be only used in pair with malloc.
Cannot allocate a variable with malloc, and then free with delete.
The simple delete operator references just first item of an array.
Because the pWord array can be also written as:
pWord = &pWord[0]; // or *pWord = pWord[0];
When an array must be deleted, use the delete[] operator instead:
delete[] pWord;
Casts are not bad, they just don't work for all the variable types.
A conversion cast is also an operator function, that must be defined.
If this operator is not defined for a certain type, it may not work.
But not all the errors are because of this conversion cast operator.
Also a cast to a void pointer must be used when using a free call.
This is because the argument of the free function is a void pointer.
free((void*)pWord);
Some errors can arise, because the size of the array is too small.
But this is another story, it is not because of using the cast.
With kind regards, Adrian Brinas
The new and delete operators can operate on classes and structures, whereas malloc and free only work with blocks of memory that need to be cast.
Using new/delete will help to improve your code as you will not need to cast allocated memory to the required data structure.
malloc() is used to dynamically assign memory in C
while the same work is done by new() in c++.
So you cannot mix coding conventions of 2 languages.
It would be good if you asked for difference between calloc and malloc()