Must I use operator delete for stack pointer?
For example:
User * p = new User;
delete p; //needed?
When you use delete you are not deleting the pointer, so it makes no difference whether it is a stack pointer or any other kind of pointer.
When you use delete you are deleting the block of memory pointed by the pointer. If that block was allocated with new, then it's always on the heap. (If it was not allocated with new, then you should not delete it.)
The other angle is that no, you must not use operator delete, because you should never use naked pointers in non-library code.
In modern C++, your example should be:
std::unique_ptr<User> p = std::make_unique<User>();
No delete and no new in sight.
Note: in this particulate case, make_unique could be substituted for new painlessly, but since in other examples it might not be, it's a good practice to teach yourself - make_unique is a function to use.
Related
int* func()
{
int* i=new int[1];
//do something
return i;
}
void funcc()
{
int* tmp=func();
//delete allocated memory after use
delete tmp;
}
should delete working as described in the second function be a correct use ?
I think I didn't allocate memory to it by new ? new was used in the first, to be sure.
It should be delete [] tmp; because you're doing array new, but otherwise, it's correct.
As others have stated, you should use delete[] to delete arrays, not delete.
But, if you're asking whether it's okay to delete tmp because the memory it points to wasn't allocated with new, then your premise is incorrect.
It was allocated with new. The address of the memory that you allocate within the function for i is passed back to be stored in tmp, so it does point to memory that was allocated by new.
You're correct that i itself is out of scope at that point but memory allocated by new survives the scope change on exit from the function. And, since you're storing its location into tmp, you still have access to it.
Hence the deletion (once you make it an array deletion with []) is quite valid.
This is Undefined Behaviour™. You can only use delete if you used new. If you used new[], you MUST delete[] it. More than that, this is hideously unsafe code- you need a smart pointer.
No. new T[] should match delete []t. And new T should match delete t. Otherwise, your code would invoke undefined bevavior.
And it doesn't matter if you do delete []tmp outside the function. Its okay to do so. All that you need to keep in mind that the form of delete.
My spidey-senses tell me that you're wondering whether the dynamically-allocated int that you create in func is the same one that you attempt to delete in funcc.
The answer is: yes. Although you don't use strictly the same pointer variable, both pointers point to the same object.
However, please remember to use delete[] (with the []) when you used new[] (with the []). Your code is broken until you fix this.
Also, try to avoid newing in one place and deleteing in another. Perhaps consider a std::vector instead, which is far less error-prone.
Can we call delete on the pointer which is allocated with the placement new? If no then why? Please explain in details.
I know that there is no placement delete. But I wonder why just delete opetator can not delete the memory without caring how that memory on which the pointer points is allocated?
delete is doing two things:
Calls destrucor
Frees memory
And I see no reaason for delete not to be able to call either of these two operations on the object which was created by placement new. Any idea about reasons?
You must only call delete on pointers that were created with operator new. If you use placement new with a memory location that was allocated by the normal operator new then you may safely use delete on it (provided you get the types and pointers right). However, you can use placement new on any memory, so you usually will manage that memory some other way and call the object's destructor manually.
For instance, in this convoluted and usually unnecessary scenario, it is safe to delete the memory you used placement new on, but only because you allocated it with new before:
char* mem = new char[sizeof(MyObject)];
MyObject* o = new (mem) MyObject;
// use o
o->~MyObject(); // with placement new you have to call the destructor by yourself
delete[] mem;
However, this is illegal:
char mem[16]; // create a buffer on the stack, assume sizeof(MyObject) == 16
MyObject* o = new (mem) MyObject; // use stack memory to hold a MyObject
// note that after placement new is done, o == mem
// pretend for this example that the point brought up by Martin in the comments didn't matter
delete o; // you just deleted memory in the stack! This is very bad
Another way to think of it is that delete only deallocates memory allocated previously by the normal new. With placement new, you do not have to use memory that was allocated by the normal new, so with the possibility of not having been allocated by normal new, delete cannot deal with it.
EDIT1: I know that there is no placement delete. But I wonder why just
delete opetator can not delete the memory without caring how that
memory on which the pointer points is allocated?
Because each flavour of memory allocation uses some implementation specific tracking of the memory (usually a header block that precedes the user address) and this make the allocation/deallocation to work only when paired up correctly:
new must pair with delete
new[] must pair with delete[] (most implementations though forgive mixing the newand new[])
malloc and frieds must pair with free
CoTaskMemAlloc pairs with CoTaskMemFree
alloca pairs with nothing (stack unwinding takes care of it)
MyCustomAllocator pairs with MyCustomFree
Attempting to call the wrong deallocator will result in unpredictable behavior( most likely seg fault now or later). Therefore calling delete on memory allocated by anything else other than new will result in bad things.
Furthermore the placement new may be called on any address, may not even be an allocated address. It can be called on an address located in the middle of some larger object, it may be called on a memory mapped region, it may be called on a raw virtual committed region, anything goes. delete woul attempt, in all these cases, to do what its implementation tell him to do: subtract the header size, interpret it as a new header, link it back into the heap. Kaboom.
The one that know how to release the memory of a placement new address is you, since you know exactly how was that memory allocated. delete will only do what it knows, and it may not be the right thing.
No, since delete not only calls the destructor but also frees the memory, but if you used placement new you must have allocated the memory yourself using malloc() or stack. You do, however, have to call the destructor yourself. Also see the C++ FAQ.
No. There is no placement-delete expression.
Typical scenario:
void * const addr = ::operator new(sizeof(T)); // get some memory
try {
T * const pT = new (addr) T(args...); // construct
/* ... */
p->~T(); // nap time
}
catch (...) {
}
::operator delete(addr); // deallocate
// this is _operator_-delete, not a delete _expression_
Note that the placement-new operator does have a corresponding delete operator which is mandated to be precisely void ::operator delete(void* [, size_t]) { }, a no-op; this is what gets called if the constructor of T throws an exception.
No, because a placement new doesn't allocate any memory. You use placement new on previously allocated raw memory. The only thing it does is call the constructor of the object.
Having structs like
struct ifoo_version_42 {
int x, y, z;
char *imageData;
};
where imageData is something like imageData = new char[50000];
Can we perform something like:
template< typename T >
void del( T a ) // we promise to use this only on C Plain Old data structs=)
{
delete a;
}
on this structure an will it be enough to clean memory form if?
Deleting the struct does not recursively delete any pointers in it, and hence doesn't free the array of char pointed to by imageData.
I'm also a bit confused by your use of delete[]. You can free an array (allocated with new[]) using delete[], or free a single object (allocated with new) using delete. You can't mix them, and you don't say how you're allocating one or more instances of ifoo_version_42. For example the following has undefined behavior:
ifoo_version_42 *x = new ifoo_version_42;
del(x);
The following is OK:
ifoo_version_42 *x = new ifoo_version_42[1];
del(x);
This function template would also "work" on non-POD types. It's literally no different from invoking delete[] a; directly.
However, this won't delete the memory associated with imageData. That's typically the sort of thing you do in a destructor.
If you perform your del function on an ifoo_version_42, then the memory block pointed to by data will not be freed; neither delete nor delete[] work recursively.
delete[] is meant to be used for freeing arrays; that is, if you allocated imageData with new[], then it should be freed with delete[].
delete is meant to be used for freeing single objects: If you e.g. allocated a ifoo_version_42 with new, then you should free it with delete.
(Also, never use delete for something allocated with malloc(), or free() with something allocated with new.)
One further suggestion: Learn the RAII idiom and use smart pointer classes provided by the STL or Boost libraries; these go a long way towards helping you with correct memory management.
Is deleting a pointer same as freeing a pointer (that allocates the memory)?
Deleting a pointer (or deleting what it points to, alternatively) means
delete p;
delete[] p; // for arrays
p was allocated prior to that statement like
p = new type;
It may also refer to using other ways of dynamic memory management, like free
free(p);
which was previously allocated using malloc or calloc
p = malloc(size);
The latter is more often referred to as "freeing", while the former is more often called "deleting". delete is used for classes with a destructor since delete will call the destructor in addition to freeing the memory. free (and malloc, calloc etc) is used for basic types, but in C++ new and delete can be used for them likewise, so there isn't much reason to use malloc in C++, except for compatibility reasons.
You can't "delete" a pointer variable
Sure you can ;-)
int** p = new int*(new int(42));
delete *p;
delete p; // <--- deletes a pointer
But seriously, delete should really be called delete_what_the_following_pointer_points_to.
Yes, delete is used to deallocate memory and call the destructor for the object involved.
It's common pratice to set pointer to NULL after deleting it to avoid having invalid pointers around:
Object *o = new Object();
// use object
delete o; // call o->~Object(), then releases memory
o = NULL;
When new and delete are used with standard C types in C++ source they behave like malloc and free.
You can't "delete" a pointer variable, only set their value to NULL (or 0).
Yes deleting a pointer is the same as deallocating memory or freeing memory, etc.
Yes and it calls the appropriate destructor.
In short, yes.
But you have to be careful: if you allocate with p = new sometype() only then should you use delete p. If you allocate using p = sometype[count] always use delete [] p
And one more thing: you should never pair malloc/delete or new/free.
I have a struct like this:
class Items
{
private:
struct item
{
unsigned int a, b, c;
};
item* items[MAX_ITEMS];
}
Say I wanted to 'delete' an item, like so:
items[5] = NULL;
And I created a new item on that same spot later:
items[5] = new item;
Would I still need to call delete[] to clean this up? Or won't this be needed since bounds of array items[] are known before compiling?
Is setting that pointer to NULL valid or should I be calling delete there?
You need to call delete before setting it to NULL. (Setting it to NULL isn't required, it just helps reduce bugs if you accidentally try to dereference the pointer after deleting it.)
Remember that every time you use new, you will need to use delete later on the same pointer. Never use one without the other.
Also, new [] and delete [] go together in the same way, but you should never mix new [] with delete or new with delete []. In your example, since you created the object with new (rather than new [] which would create an array of objects) you must delete the object with delete (rather than delete []).
As Kluge pointed out, you'd leak the object at index 5 like that. But this one really sounds like you shouldn't do this manually but use a container class inside Item. If you don't actually need to store these item objects as pointers, use std::vector<item> instead of that array of MAX_ITEMS pointers. You can always insert or erase vector elements in the middle as well if you need to.
In case you need to store the objects as pointers (usually if struct item is actually polymorphic, unlike in your example), you can use boost::ptr_vector<item> from Boost.PtrContainer instead.
Example:
class Items {
private:
struct item {
unsigned int a, b, c;
};
std::vector<item> items;
}
if (items.size() > 5) // (just to ensure there is an element at that position)
items.erase(items.begin() + 5); // no need to use operator delete at all
To delete an item use:
delete items[5];
after deleting the item it is advisable to set the deleted pointer to NULL, so you won't have an error if you later delete it again by mistake.
items[5] = NULL
Say I wanted to 'delete' an item, like so:
items[5] = NULL;
I know little Visual Basic, but that smells like a Visual Basic programming idiom, since "Set a = None" (or Null, I'm not sure) would delete the object pointed by a (or rather decrement its reference count, for COM objects).
As somebody else noted, you should use either:
delete items[5];
items[5] = newContent;
or:
delete items[5];
items[5] = NULL;
After delete[5], the only possible use of the pointer stored in items[5] is causing you trouble. What's worse is that it might happen to work at the beginning, and start failing only when you allocate something else over the space previously used by *items[5]. Those are the causes which make C/C++ programming "interesting", i.e. really annoying (even for who likes C like me).
Writing just delete items[5]; saves what can be an useless write, but that's a premature optimization.
Just to be clear: you refer to calling "delete[]". I think you mean delete.
I mention this because C++ has two separate operators, operator delete and operator delete[]. The latter is used for deleting arrays of objects allocated with operator new[], and does not apply in this case. You have an array of pointers to objects, which you must have initialised with repeated calls to operator new rather than a single call to operator new[].
All I'm really trying to say is: your use of delete[] is confusing and ambiguous; change it to delete.
There are a few, related, questions here:
According to the code you posted, the array itself is not allocated on the heap unless the struct is, so you don't need to delete[] the array. If you created the array with new[] you would have to delete[] it.
The code posted doesn't say how the objects being pointed to from the array are allocated. If you allocate those objects on the stack you must not delete them (then again, this is highly unlikely because your pointers will become invalid when the objects they point to fall out of scope). If you allocated them on the heap (with new) then you must delete them when they fall out of scope.
As others have already suggested, life is much easier if you use a container -- especially an STL container -- and smart pointers -- which for now means pointers out of Boost.
C++ isn't my strong suit, but I'm pretty sure you'd be leaking the memory if you set the pointer to NULL.
EDIT: The memory being leaked would be the memory being pointed to by the pointer in the array.
Setting items[5] to NULL doesn't delete the memory associated with the item, it simply sets the pointer to that item to NULL, therefore the memory is leaked.
You can delete the item by calling:
delete items[5];
Since C++ has not automatic garbage collection, you need to delete any memory you no longer need.