I understand the benefits of using new against malloc in C++. But for specific cases such as primitive data types (non array) - int, float etc., is it faster to use malloc than new?
Although, it is always advisable to use new even for primitives, if we are allocating an array so that we can use delete[].
But for non-array allocation, I think there wouldn't be any constructor call for int? Since, new operator allocates memory, checks if it's allocated and then calls the constructor. But just for primitives non-array heap allocation, is it better to use malloc than new?
Please advise.
Never use malloc in C++. Never use new unless you are implementing a low-level memory management primitive.
The recommendation is:
Ask yourself: "do I need dynamic memory allocation?". A lot of times you might not need it - prefer values to pointers and try to use the stack.
If you do need dynamic memory allocation, ask yourself "who will own the allocated memory/object?".
If you only need a single owner (which is very likely), you should
use std::unique_ptr. It is a zero cost abstraction over
new/delete. (A different deallocator can be specified.)
If you need shared ownership, you should use std::shared_ptr. This is not a zero cost abstraction, as it uses atomic operations and an extra "control block" to keep track of all the owners.
If you are dealing with arrays in particular, the Standard Library provides two powerful and safe abstractions that do not require any manual memory management:
std::array<T, N>: a fixed array of N elements of type T.
std::vector<T>: a resizable array of elements of type T.
std::array and std::vector should cover 99% of your "array needs".
One more important thing: the Standard Library provides the std::make_unique and std::make_shared which should always be used to create smart pointer instances. There are a few good reasons:
Shorter - no need to repeat the T (e.g. std::unique_ptr<T>{new T}), no need to use new.
More exception safe. They prevent a potential memory leak caused by the lack of a well-defined order of evaluation in function calls. E.g.
f(std::shared_ptr<int>(new int(42)), g())
Could be evaluated in this order:
new int(42)
g()
...
If g() throws, the int is leaked.
More efficient (in terms of run-time speed). This only applies to std::make_shared - using it instead of std::shared_ptr directly allows the implementation to perform a single allocation both for the object and for the control block.
You can find more information in this question.
It can still be necessary to use malloc and free in C++ when you are interacting with APIs specified using plain C, because it is not guaranteed to be safe to use free to deallocate memory allocated with operator new (which is ultimately what all of the managed memory classes use), nor to use operator delete to deallocate memory allocated with malloc.
A typical example is POSIX getline (not to be confused with std::getline): it takes a pointer to a char * variable; that variable must point to a block of memory allocated with malloc (or it can be NULL, in which case getline will call malloc for you); when you are done calling getline you are expected to call free on that variable.
Similarly, if you are writing a library, it can make sense to use C++ internally but define an extern "C" API for your external callers, because that gives you better binary interface stability and cross-language interoperability. And if you return heap-allocated POD objects to your callers, you might want to let them deallocate those objects with free; they can't necessarily use delete, and making them call YourLibraryFree when there are no destructor-type operations needed is unergonomic.
It can also still be necessary to use malloc when implementing resizable container objects, because there is no equivalent of realloc for operator new.
But as the other answers say, when you don't have this kind of interface constraint tying your hands, use one of the managed memory classes instead.
It's always better to use new. If you use malloc you still have to check manually if space is allocated.
In modern c++ you can use smart pointers. With make_unique and make_shared you never call new explicitly. std::unique_ptr is not bigger than the underlying pointer and the overhead of using it is minimal.
The answer to "should I use new or malloc" is single responsibillity rule.
Resource management should be done by a type that has that as its sole purpose.
Those classes already exists, such as unique_ptr, vector etc.
Directly using either malloc or new is a cardinal sin.
zwol's answer already gives the correct correctness answer: Use malloc()/free() when interacting with C interfaces only.
I'm not going to repeat those details, I'm going to answer the performance question.
The truth is, that the performance of malloc() and new can, and does differ. When you perform an allocation with new, the memory will generally be allocated via call to the global operator new() function, which is distinct from malloc(). It is trivial to implement operator new() by calling through to malloc(), but this is not necessarily done.
As a matter of fact, I've seen a system where an operator new() that calls through to malloc() would outperform the standard implementation of operator new() by roughly 100 CPU cycles per call. That's definitely a measurable difference, and a clear indication that the standard implementation does something very different from malloc().
So, if you are worried about performance, there is three things to do:
Measure your performance.
Write replacement implementations for the global operator new() function and its friends.
Measure your performance and compare.
The gains/losses may or may not be significant.
Related
From what is written here, new allocates in free store while malloc uses heap and the two terms often mean the same thing.
From what is written here, realloc may move the memory block to a new location. If free store and heap are two different memory spaces, does it mean any problem then?
Specifically I'd like to know if it is safe to use
int* data = new int[3];
// ...
int* mydata = (int*)realloc(data,6*sizeof(int));
If not, is there any other way to realloc memory allocated with new safely? I could allocate new area and memcpy the contents, but from what I understand realloc may use the same area if possible.
You can only realloc that which has been allocated via malloc (or family, like calloc).
That's because the underlying data structures that keep track of free and used areas of memory, can be quite different.
It's likely but by no means guaranteed that C++ new and C malloc use the same underlying allocator, in which case realloc could work for both. But formally that's in UB-land. And in practice it's just needlessly risky.
C++ does not offer functionality corresponding to realloc.
The closest is the automatic reallocation of (the internal buffers of) containers like std::vector.
The C++ containers suffer from being designed in a way that excludes use of realloc.
Instead of the presented code
int* data = new int[3];
//...
int* mydata = (int*)realloc(data,6*sizeof(int));
… do this:
vector<int> data( 3 );
//...
data.resize( 6 );
However, if you absolutely need the general efficiency of realloc, and if you have to accept new for the original allocation, then your only recourse for efficiency is to use compiler-specific means, knowledge that realloc is safe with this compiler.
Otherwise, if you absolutely need the general efficiency of realloc but is not forced to accept new, then you can use malloc and realloc. Using smart pointers then lets you get much of the same safety as with C++ containers.
The only possibly relevant restriction C++ adds to realloc is that C++'s malloc/calloc/realloc must not be implemented in terms of ::operator new, and its free must not be implemented in terms of ::operator delete (per C++14 [c.malloc]p3-4).
This means the guarantee you are looking for does not exist in C++. It also means, however, that you can implement ::operator new in terms of malloc. And if you do that, then in theory, ::operator new's result can be passed to realloc.
In practice, you should be concerned about the possibility that new's result does not match ::operator new's result. C++ compilers may e.g. combine multiple new expressions to use one single ::operator new call. This is something compilers already did when the standard didn't allow it, IIRC, and the standard now does allow it (per C++14 [expr.new]p10). That means that even if you go this route, you still don't have a guarantee that passing your new pointers to realloc does anything meaningful, even if it's no longer undefined behaviour.
In general, don't do that. If you are using user defined types with non-trivial initialization, in case of reallocation-copy-freeing, the destructor of your objects won't get called by realloc. The copy constructor won't be called too, when copying. This may lead to undefined behavior due to an incorrect use of object lifetime (see C++ Standard §3.8 Object lifetime, [basic.life]).
1 The lifetime of an object is a runtime property of the object. An object is said to have non-trivial initialization if it is of a class or aggregate type and it or one of its members is initialized by a constructor other than a trivial default constructor. [ Note: initialization by a trivial copy/move constructor is non-trivial initialization. —end note ]
The lifetime of an object of type T begins when:
— storage with the proper alignment and size for type T is obtained, and
— if the object has non-trivial initialization, its initialization is complete.
The lifetime of an object of type T ends when:
— if T is a class type with a non-trivial destructor (12.4), the destructor call starts, or
— the storage which the object occupies is reused or released.
And later (emphasis mine):
3 The properties ascribed to objects throughout this International Standard apply for a given object only during its lifetime.
So, you really don't want to use an object out of its lifetime.
It is not safe, and it's not elegant.
It might be possible to override new/delete to support the reallocation, but then you may as well consider to use the containers.
In general, no.
There are a slew of things which must hold to make it safe:
Bitwise copying the type and abandoning the source must be safe.
The destructor must be trivial, or you must in-place-destruct the elements you want to deallocate.
Either the constructor is trivial, or you must in-place-construct the new elements.
Trivial types satisfy the above requirements.
In addition:
The new[]-function must pass the request on to malloc without any change, nor do any bookkeeping on the side. You can force this by replacing global new[] and delete[], or the ones in the respective classes.
The compiler must not ask for more memory in order to save the number of elements allocated, or anything else.
There is no way to force that, though a compiler shouldn't save such information if the type has a trivial destructor as a matter of Quality of Implementation.
Yes - if new actually called malloc in the first place (for example, this is how VC++ new works).
No otherwise. do note that once you decide to reallocate the memory (because new called malloc), your code is compiler specific and not portable between compilers anymore.
(I know this answer may upset many developers, but I answer depends on real facts, not just idiomaticy).
That is not safe. Firstly the pointer you pass to realloc must have been obtained from malloc or realloc: http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/memory/c/realloc.
Secondly the result of new int [3] need not be the same as the result of the allocation function - extra space may be allocated to store the count of elements.
(And for more complex types than int, realloc wouldn't be safe since it doesn't call copy or move constructors.)
You may be able to (not in all cases), but you shouldn't. If you need to resize your data table, you should use std::vector instead.
Details on how to use it are listed in an other SO question.
These function is mostly used in C.
memset sets the bytes in a block of memory to a specific value.
malloc allocates a block of memory.
calloc, same as malloc. Only difference is that it initializes the bytes to zero.
In C++ the preferred method to allocate memory is to use new.
C: int intArray = (int*) malloc(10 *sizeof(int));
C++: int intArray = new int[10];
C: int intArray = (int*) calloc(10 *sizeof(int));
C++: int intArray = new int10;
In other words, does it or not do a malloc() syscall everytime it is called ? (maybe by allocation a large chunk in advance)
Before C++14 the standard prohibited the implementation from combining allocations. Therefor each new expression did correspond one-to-one with a call to some system allocation function (possibly malloc).
C++14 relaxed this restriction in some cases. It's now possible for the implementation to combine allocations if the lifetime of one is strictly within the lifetime of the other. This is a fairly narrow restriction though, so I expect allocations don't actually get combined all that often.
In other words, does it or not do a malloc() syscall everytime it is called?
It's actually implementation dependend. But usually implementations of new will make use of malloc() syscalls/c-library bindings.
(maybe by allocation a large chunk in advance)
Yes, you have to consider that as a drawback. Frequently calling something like
char* newChar = new char();
may clutter your dynamic storage space unnecessarily with larger chunks allocated, than a single char would need.
If you want to override that behavior for some more efficient memory management, you can always use placement new.
As others have said, this is implementation defined. However, I would think that a high-performance C++ implementation would probably not use malloc(), but would use OS-specific memory allocation APIs or system calls (which malloc() must itself use). After all, why add an extra function call to every memory allocation? But I have no hard evidence for this.
I'm new to C++ and I'm wondering why I should even bother using new and delete? It can cause problems (memory leaks) and I don't get why I shouldn't just initialize a variable without the new operator. Can someone explain it to me? It's hard to google that specific question.
For historical and efficiency reasons, C++ (and C) memory management is explicit and manual.
Sometimes, you might allocate on the call stack (e.g. by using VLAs or alloca(3)). However, that is not always possible, because
stack size is limited (depending on the platform, to a few kilobytes or a few megabytes).
memory need is not always FIFO or LIFO. It does happen that you need to allocate memory, which would be freed (or becomes useless) much later during execution, in particular because it might be the result of some function (and the caller - or its caller - would release that memory).
You definitely should read about garbage collection and dynamic memory allocation. In some languages (Java, Ocaml, Haskell, Lisp, ....) or systems, a GC is provided, and is in charge of releasing memory of useless (more precisely unreachable) data. Read also about weak references. Notice that most GCs need to scan the call stack for local pointers.
Notice that it is possible, but difficult, to have quite efficient garbage collectors (but usually not in C++). For some programs, Ocaml -with a generational copying GC- is faster than the equivalent C++ code -with explicit memory management.
Managing memory explicitly has the advantage (important in C++) that you don't pay for something you don't need. It has the inconvenience of putting more burden on the programmer.
In C or C++ you might sometimes consider using the Boehm's conservative garbage collector. With C++ you might sometimes need to use your own allocator, instead of the default std::allocator. Read also about smart pointers, reference counting, std::shared_ptr, std::unique_ptr, std::weak_ptr, and the RAII idiom, and the rule of three (in C++, becoming the rule of 5). The recent wisdom is to avoid explicit new and delete (e.g. by using standard containers and smart pointers).
Be aware that the most difficult situation in managing memory are arbitrary, perhaps circular, graphs (of reference).
On Linux and some other systems, valgrind is a useful tool to hunt memory leaks.
The alternative, allocating on the stack, will cause you trouble as stack sizes are often limited to Mb magnitudes and you'll get lots of value copies. You'll also have problems sharing stack-allocated data between function calls.
There are alternatives: using std::shared_ptr (C++11 onwards) will do the delete for you once the shared pointer is no longer being used. A technique referred to by the hideous acronym RAII is exploited by the shared pointer implementation. I mention it explicitly since most resource cleanup idioms are RAII-based. You can also make use of the comprehensive data structures available in the C++ Standard Template Library which eliminate the need to get your hands too dirty with explicit memory management.
But formally, every new must be balanced with a delete. Similarly for new[] and delete[].
Indeed in many cases new and delete are not needed, you can just use standard containers instead and leaving to them the allocation/deallocation management.
One of the reasons for which you may need to use allocation explicitly is for objects where the identity is important (i.e. they are not just values that can be copied around).
For example if you have a gui "window" object then making copies probably doesn't make sense and thus you're more or less ruling out all standard containers (they're designed for objects that can be copied and assigned). In this case if the object needs to survive the function that creates it probably the simplest solution is to just allocate explicitly it on the heap, possibly using a smart pointer to avoid leaks or use-after-delete.
In other cases it may be important to avoid copies not because they're illegal, but just not very efficient (big objects) and explicitly handling the instance lifetime may be a better (faster) solution.
Another case where explicit allocation/deallocation may be the best option are complex data structures that cannot be represented by the standard library (for example a tree in which each node is also part of a doubly-linked list).
Modern C++ styles often frown on explicit calls to new and delete outside of specialized resource management code.
This is not because the stack/automatic storage is sufficient, but rather because RAII smart resource owners (be they containers, shared pointers, or something else) make almost all direct memory wrangling unnessecary. And as the problem of memory management is often error prone, this makes your code more robust, easier to read, and sometimes faster (as the fancy resource owners can use techniques you might not bother with everywhere).
This is exemplified by the rule of zero: write no destructor, copy/move assign, copy/move constructor. Store state in smart storage, and have it handle it for you.
None of the above applies when you yourself are writing smart memory owning classes. This is a rare thing to need to do, however. It also requires C++14 (for make_unique) to get rid of the penultimate excuse to call new.
Now, the free store is still used, just not directly, under the above style. The free store (aka heap) is needed because automatic storage (aka the stack) only supports really simple object lifetime rules (scope based, compile time deterministic size and count, FILO order). As runtime sized and counted data is common, and object lifetime is often not that simple, the free store is used by most programs. Sometimes copying an object around on the stack is enough to make the simple lifetime less of a problem, but at other times identity is important.
The final reason is stack overflow. On some C++ implementations the stack/automatic storage is seriously constrained in size. What more is that there is rarely if ever a reliable failure mode when you put to much stuff in it. By storing large data on the free store, we can reduce the chance the stack will overflow.
First, if you don't need dynamic allocation, don't use it.
The most frequent reason for needing dynamic allocation is that
the object will have a lifetime which is determined by the
program logic rather than lexical scope. The new and
delete operators are designed to support explicitly managed
lifetimes.
Another common reason is that the size or structure of the
"object" is determined at runtime. For simple cases (arrays,
etc.) there are standard classes (std::vector) which will
handle this for you, but for more complicated structures (e.g.
graphs and trees), you'll have to do this yourself. (The usual
technique here is to create a class representing the graph or
tree, and have it manage the memory.)
And there is the case where the object must be polymorphic, and
the actual type won't be known until runtime. (There are some
tricky ways of handling this without dynamic allocation in the
simplest cases, but in general, you'll need dynamic allocation.)
In this case, std::unique_ptr might be appropriate to handle
the delete, or if the object must be shared, std::shared_ptr
(although usually, objects which must be shared fall into the
first category, above, and so smart pointers aren't
appropriate).
There are probably other reasons as well, but these are the
three that I've encountered the most often.
Only on simple programs you can know beforehand how much memory you'd use. In general you can not foresee how much memory you'd use.
However with modern C++11 you generally rely on standard libraries like vector and map for memory allocation, and the use of smart pointers helps you avoid memory leaks, so you don't really need to use new and delete explicitly by hand.
When you are using New then your object stores in Heap, and it remains there until you don't manually delete it. but in the case without using new your object goes in Stack and it destroys automatically when it goes out of scope.
Stack is set to a fix size, so if there is no any block for assign a new object then Stack Overflow occurs. This often happens when a lot of nested functions are being called, or if there is an infinite recursive call. If the current size of the heap is too small to accommodate new memory, then more memory can be added to the heap by the operating system.
Another reason may be if you are explicitly calling an external library or API with a C-style interface. Setting up a callback in such cases often means context data must be supplied and returned in the callback, and such an interface usually provides only a 'simple' void* or int*. Allocating an object or struct with new is appropriate for such actions, (you can delete it later in the callback, should you need to).
In Exceptional C++, Herb Sutter wrote in Item 35 as a guideline:
Prefer using the free store (new/delete). Avoid using the heap
(malloc/free).
Why should I?
If an implementation chooses to implement new by using malloc, an overhead would probably incur, so that looks like a bad piece of advice as far as performance is concerned.
The new and delete keywords in C++ usually are implemented in terms of malloc and free, but they're designed to do different things.
In C++, if you say
new T(/* args */)
C++ will do the following:
Attempt to allocate enough memory to hold an object of type T.
On failure, attempt to use the new handler to free space, eventually throwing a std::bad_alloc object if no memory is available.
Attempt construct an object of type T in that block of memory.
Automatically deallocate the memory if the construction of the object of type T throws an exception.
If you just use malloc, you have to do all of these steps manually, which would be very, very hard. It might look something like this:
T* memory = nullptr;
while (true) {
memory = static_cast<T*>(malloc(sizeof(T)));
if (memory != nullptr) break;
std::get_new_handler()();
}
try {
new (memory) T(/* args */);
} catch (...) {
free(memory);
throw;
}
There are some other nuances here that I've glossed over (like calling operator new instead of malloc, or handling zero-sized requests, etc.), but I hope this helps explain how new and malloc are different.
So why should you use new over malloc? Well, there's a few reasons:
It's much safer. With malloc you can forget to check the return type for a null pointer, or you could request the wrong amount of storage space, or you could forget to call the constructor on the object, or you could forget to deallocate memory if the constructor throws an exception, etc.
It's more type-safe. malloc returns a void*, which is just a pointer to a block of memory. Using malloc, you have to cast the pointer to the proper type, which introduces the potential for errors later on.
It allows customization. Certain types overload operator new to request memory in an unusual way, such as from a pooled allocator or from certain pieces of memory that might be faster, or using a custom allocator that optimizes over the usage pattern. Given this, you can automatically customize all times where memory is allocated dynamically for an object of type T simply by defining operator new and operator delete. If you use malloc, you have to chase down all memory allocation sites throughout the entire program.
That said, there are some advantages to malloc. If you know for certain that you're allocating objects that are trivial objects (like primitives or structs that just hold data), it might be slightly faster to use malloc. malloc also lets you use realloc, which free doesn't. But honestly, you're probably better off just using std::vector or std::array in cases like this, since they're safer, easier to debug, and with good compiler support are likely to be aggressively optimized.
Hope this helps!
I know that when delete [] will cause destruction for all array elements and then releases the memory.
I initially thought that compiler wants it just to call destructor for all elements in the array, but I have also a counter - argument for that which is:
Heap memory allocator must know the size of bytes allocated and using sizeof(Type) its possible to find no of elements and to call appropriate no of destructors for an array to prevent resource leaks.
So my assumption is correct or not and please clear my doubt on it.
So I am not getting the usage of [] in delete [] ?
Scott Meyers says in his Effective C++ book: Item 5: Use the same form in corresponding uses of new and delete.
The big question for delete is this: how many objects reside in the memory being deleted? The answer to that determines how many destructors must be called.
Does the pointer being deleted point to a single object or to an array of objects? The only way for delete to know is for you to tell it. If you don't use brackets in your use of delete, delete assumes a single object is pointed to.
Also, the memory allocator might allocate more space that required to store your objects and in this case dividing the size of the memory block returned by the size of each object won't work.
Depending on the platform, the _msize (windows), malloc_usable_size (linux) or malloc_size (osx) functions will tell you the real length of the block that was allocated. This information can be exploited when designing growing containers.
Another reason why it won't work is that Foo* foo = new Foo[10] calls operator new[] to allocate the memory. Then delete [] foo; calls operator delete[] to deallocate the memory. As those operators can be overloaded, you have to adhere to the convention otherwise delete foo; calls operator delete which may have an incompatible implementation with operator delete []. It's a matter of semantics, not just keeping track of the number of allocated object to later issue the right number of destructor calls.
See also:
[16.14] After p = new Fred[n], how does the compiler know there are n objects to be destructed during delete[] p?
Short answer: Magic.
Long answer: The run-time system stores the number of objects, n, somewhere where it can be retrieved if you only know the pointer, p. There are two popular techniques that do this. Both these techniques are in use by commercial-grade compilers, both have tradeoffs, and neither is perfect. These techniques are:
Over-allocate the array and put n just to the left of the first Fred object.
Use an associative array with p as the key and n as the value.
EDIT: after having read #AndreyT comments, I dug into my copy of Stroustrup's "The Design and Evolution of C++" and excerpted the following:
How do we ensure that an array is correctly deleted? In particular, how do we ensure that the destructor is called for all elements of an array?
...
Plain delete isn't required to handle both individual objects an arrays. This avoids complicating the common case of allocating and deallocating individual objects. It also avoids encumbering individual objects with information necessary for array deallocation.
An intermediate version of delete[] required the programmer to specify the number of elements of the array.
...
That proved too error prone, so the burden of keeping track of the number of elements was placed on the implementation instead.
As #Marcus mentioned, the rational may have been "you don't pay for what you don't use".
EDIT2:
In "The C++ Programming Language, 3rd edition", §10.4.7, Bjarne Stroustrup writes:
Exactly how arrays and individual objects are allocated is implementation-dependent. Therefore, different implementations will react differently to incorrect uses of the delete and delete[] operators. In simple and uninteresting cases like the previous one, a compiler can detect the problem, but generally something nasty will happen at run time.
The special destruction operator for arrays, delete[], isn’t logically necessary. However, suppose the implementation of the free store had been required to hold sufficient information for every object to tell if it was an individual or an array. The user could have been relieved of a burden, but that obligation would have imposed significant time and space overheads on some C++ implementations.
The main reason why it was decided to keep separate delete and delete[] is that these two entities are not as similar as it might seem at the first sight. For a naive observer they might seem to be almost the same: just destruct and deallocate, with the only difference in the potential number of objects to process. In reality, the difference is much more significant.
The most important difference between the two is that delete might perform polymorphic deletion of objects, i.e. the static type of the object in question might be different from its dynamic type. delete[] on the other hand must deal with strictly non-polymorphic deletion of arrays. So, internally these two entities implement logic that is significantly different and non-intersecting between the two. Because of the possibility of polymorphic deletion, the functionality of delete is not even remotely the same as the functionality of delete[] on an array of 1 element, as a naive observer might incorrectly assume initially.
Contrary to the strange claims made in some other answers, it is, of course, perfectly possible to replace delete and delete[] with just a single construct that would branch at the very early stage, i.e. it would determine the type of the memory block (array or not) using the household information that would be stored by new/new[], and then jump to the appropriate functionality, equivalent to either delete or delete[]. However, this would be a rather poor design decision, since, once again, the functionality of the two is too different. Forcing both into a single construct would be akin to creating a Swiss Army Knife of a deallocation function. Also, in order to be able to tell an array from a non-array we'd have to introduce an additional piece of household information even into a single-object memory allocations done with plain new. This might easily result in notable memory overhead in single object allocations.
But, once again, the main reason here is the functional difference between delete and delete[]. These language entities possess only apparent skin-deep similarity that exists only at the level of naive specification ("destruct and free memory"), but once one gets to understand in detail what these entities really have to do one realizes that they are too different to be merged into one.
P.S. This is BTW one of the problems with the suggestion about sizeof(type) you made in the question. Because of the potentially polymorphic nature of delete, you don't know the type in delete, which is why you can't obtain any sizeof(type). There are more problems with this idea, but that one is already enough to explain why it won't fly.
The heap itself knows the size of allocated block - you only need the address. Look like free() works - you only pass the address and it frees memory.
The difference between delete (delete[]) and free() is that the former two first call the destructors, then free memory (possibly using free()). The problem is that delete[] also has only one argument - the address and having only that address it need to know the number of objects to run destructors on. So new[] uses som implementation-defined way of writing somewhere the number of elements - usually it prepends the array with the number of elements. Now delete[] will rely on that implementation-specific data to run destructors and then free memory (again, only using the block address).
delete[] just calls a different implementation (function);
There's no reason an allocator couldn't track it (in fact, it would be easy enough to write your own).
I don't know the reason they did not manage it, or the history of the implementation, if I were to guess: Many of these 'well, why wasn't this slightly simpler?' questions (in C++) came down to one or more of:
compatibility with C
performance
In this case, performance. Using delete vs delete[] is easy enough, I believe it could all be abstracted from the programmer and be reasonably fast (for general use). delete[] only requires only a few additional function calls and operations (omitting destructor calls), but that is per call to delete, and unnecessary because the programmer generally knows the type he/she is dealing with (if not, there's likely a bigger problem at hand). So it just avoids calling through the allocator. Additionally, these single allocations may not need to be tracked by the allocator in as much detail; Treating every allocation as an array would require additional entries for count for trivial allocations, so it is multiple levels of simple allocator implementation simplifications which are actually important for many people, considering it is a very low level domain.
This is more complicated.
The keyword and the convention to use it to delete an array was invented for the convenience of implementations, and some implementations do use it (I don't know which though. MS VC++ does not).
The convenience is this:
In all other cases, you know the exact size to be freed by other means. When you delete a single object, you can have the size from compile-time sizeof(). When you delete a polymorphic object by base pointer and you have a virtual destructor, you can have the size as a separate entry in vtbl. If you delete an array, how would you know the size of memory to be freed, unless you track it separately?
The special syntax would allow tracking such size only for an array - for instance, by putting it before the address that is returned to the user. This takes up additional resources and is not needed for non-arrays.