Related
I want to reset an object. Can I do it in the following way?
anObject->~AnObject();
anObject = new(anObject) AnObject();
// edit: this is not allowed: anObject->AnObject();
This code is obviously a subset of typical life cycle of an object allocated by in placement new:
AnObject* anObject = malloc(sizeof(AnObject));
anObject = new (anObject) AnObject(); // My step 2.
// ...
anObject->~AnObject(); // My step 1.
free(anObject)
// EDIT: The fact I used malloc instead of new doesn't carry any meaning
The only thing that's changed is the order of constructor and destructor calls.
So, why in the following FAQ
all the threatening appear?
[11.9] But can I explicitly call a
destructor if I've allocated my object
with new?
FAQ: You can't, unless the object was
allocated with placement new. Objects
created by new must be deleted, which
does two things (remember them): calls
the destructor, then frees the memory.
FQA: Translation: delete is a way to
explictly call a destructor, but it
also deallocates the memory. You can
also call a destructor without
deallocating the memory. It's ugly and
useless in most cases, but you can do
that.
The destructor/constructor call is obviously normal C++ code. Guarantees used in the code directly result from the in placement new guarantees. It is the core of the standard, it's rock solid thing. How can it be called "dirty" and be presented as something unreliable?
Do you think it's possible, that the in-placement and non-in-placement implementation of new are different? I'm thinking about some sick possibility, that the regular new can for example put size of the memory block allocated before the block, which in-placement new obviously would not do (because it doesn't allocate any memory). This could result in a gap for some problems... Is such new() implementation possible?
Don't get sucked in by the FQA troll. As usual he gets the facts wrong.
You can certainly call the destructor directly, for all objects whether they are created with placement new or not. Ugly is in the eye of the beholder, it is indeed rarely needed, but the only hard fact is that both memory allocation and object creation must be balanced.
"Regular" new/delete simplifies this a bit by tying memory allocation and object creation together, and stack allocation simplifies it even further by doing both for you.
However, the following is perfectly legal:
int foo() {
CBar bar;
(&bar)->~CBar();
new (&bar) CBar(42);
}
Both objects are destroyed, and the stack memory is automatically recycled too. yet unlike the FQA claims, the first call of the destructor is not preceded by placement new.
Why not implement a Clear() method, that does whatever the code in the body of the destructor does? The destructor then just calls Clear() and you call Clear() directly on an object to "reset it".
Another option, assuming your class supports assignment correctly:
MyClass a;
...
a = MyClass();
I use this pattern for resetting std::stack instances, as the stack adaptor does
not provide a clear function.
Technically it is bad practice to call constructors or destructors explicitly.
The delete keyword ends up calling them when you use it. Same goes for new with constructors.
I'm sorry but that code makes me want to tear my hair out. You should be doing it like this:
Allocate a new instance of an object
AnObject* anObject = new AnObject();
Delete an instance of an object
delete anObject;
NEVER do this:
anObject->~AnObject(); // My step 1.
free(anObject)
If you must "reset" an object, either create a method which clears all the instance variables inside, or what I would recommend you do is Delete the object and allocate yourself a new one.
"It is the core of the language?"
That means nothing. Perl has about six ways to write a for loop. Just because you CAN do things in a language because they are supported does mean you should use them. Heck I could write all my code using for switch statements because the "Core" of the language supports them. Doesn't make it a good idea.
Why are you using malloc when you clearly don't have to. Malloc is a C method.
New and Delete are your friends in C++
"Resetting" an Object
myObject.Reset();
There you go. This way saves you from needlessly allocating and deallocating memory in a dangerous fashion. Write your Reset() method to clear the value of all objects inside your class.
You cannot call the constructor in the manner indicated by you. Instead, you can do so using placement-new (like your code also indicates):
new (anObject) AnObject();
This code is guaranteed to be well-defined if the memory location is still available – as it should be in your case.
(I've deleted the part about whether this is debatable code or not – it's well-defined. Full stop.)
By the way, Brock is right: how the implementation of delete isn't fixed – it is not the same as calling the destructor, followed by free. Always pair calls of new and delete, never mix one with the other: that's undefined.
Yes, what you are doing is valid most of the time. [basic.life]p8 says:
If, after the lifetime of an object has ended and before the storage which the object occupied is reused or released, a new object is created at the storage location which the original object occupied, a pointer that pointed to the original object, a reference that referred to the original object, or the name of the original object will automatically refer to the new object and, once the lifetime of the new object has started, can be used to manipulate the new object, if:
the storage for the new object exactly overlays the storage location which the original object occupied, and
the new object is of the same type as the original object (ignoring the top-level cv-qualifiers), and
the type of the original object is not const-qualified, and, if a class type, does not contain any non-static data member whose type is const-qualified or a reference type, and
neither the original object nor the new object is a potentially-overlapping subobject ([intro.object]).
So it is legal if you don't have a const or reference member.
If you don't have this guarantee, you need to use std::launder or use the pointer returned by placement new (like you're doing anyways) if you want to use the new object:
// no const/ref members
anObject->~AnObject(); // destroy object
new (anObject) AnObject(); // create new object in same storage, ok
anObject->f(); // ok
// const/ref members
anObject->~AnObject();
auto newObject = new (anObject) AnObject();
anObject->f(); // UB
newObject->f(); // ok
std::launder(anObject)->f(); // ok
Note that they're not malloc and free that are used, but operator new and operator delete. Also, unlike your code, by using new you're guaranteeing exception safety. The nearly equivalent code would be the following.
AnObject* anObject = ::operator new(sizeof(AnObject));
try
{
anObject = new (anObject) AnObject();
}
catch (...)
{
::operator delete(anObject);
throw;
}
anObject->~AnObject();
::operator delete(anObject)
The reset you're proposing is valid, but not idiomatic. It's difficult to get right and as such is generally frowned upon and discouraged.
Why not reset using the operator=()? This is not debatable and by far more readable.
A a;
//do something that changes the state of a
a = A(); // reset the thing
You can't call the constructor like that, but there's nothing wrong with reusing the memory and calling placement new, as long you don't delete or free (deallocate) the memory. I must say reseting an object like this is a little sketchy. I would write an object to be explicitly resetable, or write a swap method and use that to reset it.
E.g.
anObject.swap( AnObject() ); // swap with "clean" object
If your object has sensible assignment semantics (and correct operator=), then *anObject = AnObject() makes more sense, and is easier to understand.
It is far better just to add something like a Reset() method to your object rather than play with placement new's.
You are exploiting the placement new feature which is intended to allow you to control where an object is allocated. This is typically only an issue if your hardware has "special" memory like a flash chip. IF you want to put some objects in the flash chip, you can use this technique. The reason that it allows you to explicitly call the destructor is that YOU are now in control of the memory, so the C++ compiler doesn't know how to do the deallocation part of the delete.
It is not saving you much code either, with a reset method, you will have to set the members to their starting values. malloc() doesn't do that so you are going to have to write that code in the constructor anyway. Just make a function that sets your members to the starting values, call it Reset() call it from the constructor and also from anywhere else you need.
I want to reset an object. Can I do it in the following way?
anObject->~AnObject();
anObject = new(anObject) AnObject();
// edit: this is not allowed: anObject->AnObject();
This code is obviously a subset of typical life cycle of an object allocated by in placement new:
AnObject* anObject = malloc(sizeof(AnObject));
anObject = new (anObject) AnObject(); // My step 2.
// ...
anObject->~AnObject(); // My step 1.
free(anObject)
// EDIT: The fact I used malloc instead of new doesn't carry any meaning
The only thing that's changed is the order of constructor and destructor calls.
So, why in the following FAQ
all the threatening appear?
[11.9] But can I explicitly call a
destructor if I've allocated my object
with new?
FAQ: You can't, unless the object was
allocated with placement new. Objects
created by new must be deleted, which
does two things (remember them): calls
the destructor, then frees the memory.
FQA: Translation: delete is a way to
explictly call a destructor, but it
also deallocates the memory. You can
also call a destructor without
deallocating the memory. It's ugly and
useless in most cases, but you can do
that.
The destructor/constructor call is obviously normal C++ code. Guarantees used in the code directly result from the in placement new guarantees. It is the core of the standard, it's rock solid thing. How can it be called "dirty" and be presented as something unreliable?
Do you think it's possible, that the in-placement and non-in-placement implementation of new are different? I'm thinking about some sick possibility, that the regular new can for example put size of the memory block allocated before the block, which in-placement new obviously would not do (because it doesn't allocate any memory). This could result in a gap for some problems... Is such new() implementation possible?
Don't get sucked in by the FQA troll. As usual he gets the facts wrong.
You can certainly call the destructor directly, for all objects whether they are created with placement new or not. Ugly is in the eye of the beholder, it is indeed rarely needed, but the only hard fact is that both memory allocation and object creation must be balanced.
"Regular" new/delete simplifies this a bit by tying memory allocation and object creation together, and stack allocation simplifies it even further by doing both for you.
However, the following is perfectly legal:
int foo() {
CBar bar;
(&bar)->~CBar();
new (&bar) CBar(42);
}
Both objects are destroyed, and the stack memory is automatically recycled too. yet unlike the FQA claims, the first call of the destructor is not preceded by placement new.
Why not implement a Clear() method, that does whatever the code in the body of the destructor does? The destructor then just calls Clear() and you call Clear() directly on an object to "reset it".
Another option, assuming your class supports assignment correctly:
MyClass a;
...
a = MyClass();
I use this pattern for resetting std::stack instances, as the stack adaptor does
not provide a clear function.
Technically it is bad practice to call constructors or destructors explicitly.
The delete keyword ends up calling them when you use it. Same goes for new with constructors.
I'm sorry but that code makes me want to tear my hair out. You should be doing it like this:
Allocate a new instance of an object
AnObject* anObject = new AnObject();
Delete an instance of an object
delete anObject;
NEVER do this:
anObject->~AnObject(); // My step 1.
free(anObject)
If you must "reset" an object, either create a method which clears all the instance variables inside, or what I would recommend you do is Delete the object and allocate yourself a new one.
"It is the core of the language?"
That means nothing. Perl has about six ways to write a for loop. Just because you CAN do things in a language because they are supported does mean you should use them. Heck I could write all my code using for switch statements because the "Core" of the language supports them. Doesn't make it a good idea.
Why are you using malloc when you clearly don't have to. Malloc is a C method.
New and Delete are your friends in C++
"Resetting" an Object
myObject.Reset();
There you go. This way saves you from needlessly allocating and deallocating memory in a dangerous fashion. Write your Reset() method to clear the value of all objects inside your class.
You cannot call the constructor in the manner indicated by you. Instead, you can do so using placement-new (like your code also indicates):
new (anObject) AnObject();
This code is guaranteed to be well-defined if the memory location is still available – as it should be in your case.
(I've deleted the part about whether this is debatable code or not – it's well-defined. Full stop.)
By the way, Brock is right: how the implementation of delete isn't fixed – it is not the same as calling the destructor, followed by free. Always pair calls of new and delete, never mix one with the other: that's undefined.
Yes, what you are doing is valid most of the time. [basic.life]p8 says:
If, after the lifetime of an object has ended and before the storage which the object occupied is reused or released, a new object is created at the storage location which the original object occupied, a pointer that pointed to the original object, a reference that referred to the original object, or the name of the original object will automatically refer to the new object and, once the lifetime of the new object has started, can be used to manipulate the new object, if:
the storage for the new object exactly overlays the storage location which the original object occupied, and
the new object is of the same type as the original object (ignoring the top-level cv-qualifiers), and
the type of the original object is not const-qualified, and, if a class type, does not contain any non-static data member whose type is const-qualified or a reference type, and
neither the original object nor the new object is a potentially-overlapping subobject ([intro.object]).
So it is legal if you don't have a const or reference member.
If you don't have this guarantee, you need to use std::launder or use the pointer returned by placement new (like you're doing anyways) if you want to use the new object:
// no const/ref members
anObject->~AnObject(); // destroy object
new (anObject) AnObject(); // create new object in same storage, ok
anObject->f(); // ok
// const/ref members
anObject->~AnObject();
auto newObject = new (anObject) AnObject();
anObject->f(); // UB
newObject->f(); // ok
std::launder(anObject)->f(); // ok
Note that they're not malloc and free that are used, but operator new and operator delete. Also, unlike your code, by using new you're guaranteeing exception safety. The nearly equivalent code would be the following.
AnObject* anObject = ::operator new(sizeof(AnObject));
try
{
anObject = new (anObject) AnObject();
}
catch (...)
{
::operator delete(anObject);
throw;
}
anObject->~AnObject();
::operator delete(anObject)
The reset you're proposing is valid, but not idiomatic. It's difficult to get right and as such is generally frowned upon and discouraged.
Why not reset using the operator=()? This is not debatable and by far more readable.
A a;
//do something that changes the state of a
a = A(); // reset the thing
You can't call the constructor like that, but there's nothing wrong with reusing the memory and calling placement new, as long you don't delete or free (deallocate) the memory. I must say reseting an object like this is a little sketchy. I would write an object to be explicitly resetable, or write a swap method and use that to reset it.
E.g.
anObject.swap( AnObject() ); // swap with "clean" object
If your object has sensible assignment semantics (and correct operator=), then *anObject = AnObject() makes more sense, and is easier to understand.
It is far better just to add something like a Reset() method to your object rather than play with placement new's.
You are exploiting the placement new feature which is intended to allow you to control where an object is allocated. This is typically only an issue if your hardware has "special" memory like a flash chip. IF you want to put some objects in the flash chip, you can use this technique. The reason that it allows you to explicitly call the destructor is that YOU are now in control of the memory, so the C++ compiler doesn't know how to do the deallocation part of the delete.
It is not saving you much code either, with a reset method, you will have to set the members to their starting values. malloc() doesn't do that so you are going to have to write that code in the constructor anyway. Just make a function that sets your members to the starting values, call it Reset() call it from the constructor and also from anywhere else you need.
From the vector docs it would appear that the proper way to completely deallocate a vector of values to which you have a class member pointer such as:
std::vector<MyObject>* mvMyObjectVector_ptr;
...
//In the class constructor:
mvMyObjectVector_ptr = new std::vector<MyObject>();
would be to invoke the following, in order, in the class's destructor implementation
mvMyObjectVector_ptr->clear();
delete mvMyObjectVector_ptr;
However, this appears to be leading to SIGABRT 'pointer being freed was not allocated' errors. Is the above idiom the correct way to completely deallocate the memory held at the address pointed to by a pointer to a vector (if it is, I assume my errors are coming from something else)? If not, what is the correct way?
Yes, it is correct, provided mvMyObjectVector_ptr has been allocated using new.
Additionally, MyObject needs to satisfy certain requirements before it can be used with std::vector.
The call to clear() is redundant and can be omitted.
Some likely reasons for the SIGABRT include:
mvMyObjectVector_ptr hasn't been allocated using new;
MyObject violates the Rule of Three;
the class the contains the vector violates the Rule of Three.
I don' think your problem lies in the code you have shown us.
This line:
//In the class constructor:
suggests you are using this inside a class and not implementing the rule of three correctly.
A better idea is not to use a pointer to a vector.
Just declare it as a normal automatic member.
class MyClassContainingVector
{
public:
std::vector<MyObject> mvMyObjectVector;
// ^^^^^ notice no pointer.
};
Now it will be created and destroyed correctly and automatically.
Neither your constructor or destructor will need any code to manage this object.
Yes, dynamically allocating a std::vector object by calling new and invoking its destruction by calling delete will result in memory that has been internally used for holding its elements being freed.
However it would be much simpler and more reliable to follow RAII idiom and use an object with automatic storage duration:
{
std::vector<MyObject> myVector;
...
} // <-- memory is freed here
when execution leaves this scope (note that it could be also caused by exception being thrown etc.), it is guaranteed that myVector object will be destructed and memory will be freed.
Vectors usually shouldn't be held as dynamically allocated pointers. They should be just member variables of your class, in most situations (though there are always exceptions). If they are pointers allocated by 'new', and simple 'delete' should work.
Vectors handle memory allocation for you, so you don't have to. However, if you want to truly free all the storage memory held in a vector, even if it's on the stack, there's a new function for that.
Because vector.reserve() only expands memory, but never shrinks it, in C++11, a new function was added for the purpose of freeing the reserved memory: vector.shrink_to_fit(). Implementations and free to do what they want with it, but you're basically asking the implementation to free the memory, so they should answer the request in a reasonable way.
You can truly clear a vector by going like this:
vector.clear(); //Erases the elements.
vector.shrink_to_fit(); //Erases the memory no longer needed by the elements.
The reasons why vectors hold onto their memory is for performance reasons, so you should only do this if you actually understand why they have memory in reserve, and are willing to deal with (or know you won't have to deal with) any performance hits that result from micro-managing the memory.
While learning different languages, I've often seen objects allocated on the fly, most often in Java and C#, like this:
functionCall(new className(initializers));
I understand that this is perfectly legal in memory-managed languages, but can this technique be used in C++ without causing a memory leak?
Your code is valid (assuming functionCall() actually guarantees that the pointer gets deleted), but it's fragile and will make alarm bells go off in the heads of most C++ programmers.
There are multiple problems with your code:
First and foremost, who owns the pointer? Who is responsible for freeing it? The calling code can't do it, because you don't store the pointer. That means the called function must do it, but that's not clear to someone looking at that function. Similarly, if I call the code from somewhere else, I certainly don't expect the function to call delete on the pointer I passed to it!
If we make your example slightly more complex, it can leak memory, even if the called function calls delete. Say it looks like this: functionCall(new className(initializers), new className(initializers)); Imagine that the first one is allocated successfully, but the second one throws an exception (maybe it's out of memory, or maybe the class constructor threw an exception). functionCall never gets called then, and can't free the memory.
The simple (but still messy) solution is to allocate memory first, and store the pointer, and then free it in the same scope as it was declared (so the calling function owns the memory):
className* p = new className(initializers);
functionCall(p);
delete p;
But this is still a mess. What if functionCall throws an exception? Then p won't be deleted. Unless we add a try/catch around the whole thing, but sheesh, that's messy.
What if the function gets a bit more complex, and may return after functionCall but before delete? Whoops, memory leak. Impossible to maintain. Bad code.
So one of the nice solutions is to use a smart pointer:
boost::shared_ptr<className> p = boost::shared_ptr<className>(new className(initializers));
functionCall(p);
Now ownership of the memory is dealt with. The shared_ptr owns the memory, and guarantees that it'll get freed. We could use std::auto_ptr instead, of course, but shared_ptr implements the semantics you'd usually expect.
Note that I still allocated the memory on a separate line, because the problem with making multiple allocations on the same line as you make the function call still exists. One of them may still throw, and then you've leaked memory.
Smart pointers are generally the absolute minimum you need to handle memory management.
But often, the nice solution is to write your own RAII class.
className should be allocated on the stack, and in its constructor, make what allocations with new are necessary. And in its destructor, it should free that memory. This way, you're guaranteed that no memory leaks will occur, and you can make the function call as simple as this:
functionCall(className(initializers));
The C++ standard library works like this. std::vector is one example. You'd never allocate a vector with new. You allocate it on the stack, and let it deal with its memory allocations internally.
Yes, as long as you deallocate the memory inside the function. But by no means this is a best practice for C++.
It depends.
This passes "ownership" of the memory to functionCAll(). It will either need to free the object or save the pointer so that it can be freed later. Passing the ownership of raw pointers like this is one of the easiest ways to build memory issues into your code -- either leaks or double deletes.
In C++ we would not create the memory dynamically like that.
Instead you would create a temporary stack object.
You only need to create a heap object via new if you want the lifetime of the object to be greater than the call to the function. In this case you can use new in conjunction with a smart pointer (see other answers for an example).
// No need for new or memory management just do this
functionCall(className(initializers));
// This assumes you can change the functionCall to somthing like this.
functionCall(className const& param)
{
<< Do Stuff >>
}
If you want to pass a non const reference then do it like this:
calssName tmp(initializers);
functionCall(tmp);
functionCall(className& param)
{
<< Do Stuff >>
}
It is safe if the function that you are calling has acceptance-of-ownership semantics. I don't recall a time where I needed this, so I would consider it unusual.
If the function works this way, it should take its argument as a smart pointer object so that the intent is clea; i.e.
void functionCall(std::auto_ptr<className> ptr);
rather than
void functionCall(className* ptr);
This makes the transfer of ownership explicit, and the calling function will dispose of the memory pointed to by ptr when execution of the function falls out of scope.
This will work for objects created on the stack, but not a regular pointer in C++.
An auto pointer maybe able to handle it, but I haven't messed with them enough to know.
In general, no, unless you want to leak memory. In fact, in most cases, this won't work, since the result of
new T();
in C++ is a T*, not a T (in C#, new T() returns a T).
Have a look at Smart Pointers or A garbage collector for C and C++.
I've been using C++ for a short while, and I've been wondering about the new keyword. Simply, should I be using it, or not?
With the new keyword...
MyClass* myClass = new MyClass();
myClass->MyField = "Hello world!";
Without the new keyword...
MyClass myClass;
myClass.MyField = "Hello world!";
From an implementation perspective, they don't seem that different (but I'm sure they are)... However, my primary language is C#, and of course the 1st method is what I'm used to.
The difficulty seems to be that method 1 is harder to use with the std C++ classes.
Which method should I use?
Update 1:
I recently used the new keyword for heap memory (or free store) for a large array which was going out of scope (i.e. being returned from a function). Where before I was using the stack, which caused half of the elements to be corrupt outside of scope, switching to heap usage ensured that the elements were intact. Yay!
Update 2:
A friend of mine recently told me there's a simple rule for using the new keyword; every time you type new, type delete.
Foobar *foobar = new Foobar();
delete foobar; // TODO: Move this to the right place.
This helps to prevent memory leaks, as you always have to put the delete somewhere (i.e. when you cut and paste it to either a destructor or otherwise).
Method 1 (using new)
Allocates memory for the object on the free store (This is frequently the same thing as the heap)
Requires you to explicitly delete your object later. (If you don't delete it, you could create a memory leak)
Memory stays allocated until you delete it. (i.e. you could return an object that you created using new)
The example in the question will leak memory unless the pointer is deleted; and it should always be deleted, regardless of which control path is taken, or if exceptions are thrown.
Method 2 (not using new)
Allocates memory for the object on the stack (where all local variables go) There is generally less memory available for the stack; if you allocate too many objects, you risk stack overflow.
You won't need to delete it later.
Memory is no longer allocated when it goes out of scope. (i.e. you shouldn't return a pointer to an object on the stack)
As far as which one to use; you choose the method that works best for you, given the above constraints.
Some easy cases:
If you don't want to worry about calling delete, (and the potential to cause memory leaks) you shouldn't use new.
If you'd like to return a pointer to your object from a function, you must use new
There is an important difference between the two.
Everything not allocated with new behaves much like value types in C# (and people often say that those objects are allocated on the stack, which is probably the most common/obvious case, but not always true). More precisely, objects allocated without using new have automatic storage duration
Everything allocated with new is allocated on the heap, and a pointer to it is returned, exactly like reference types in C#.
Anything allocated on the stack has to have a constant size, determined at compile-time (the compiler has to set the stack pointer correctly, or if the object is a member of another class, it has to adjust the size of that other class). That's why arrays in C# are reference types. They have to be, because with reference types, we can decide at runtime how much memory to ask for. And the same applies here. Only arrays with constant size (a size that can be determined at compile-time) can be allocated with automatic storage duration (on the stack). Dynamically sized arrays have to be allocated on the heap, by calling new.
(And that's where any similarity to C# stops)
Now, anything allocated on the stack has "automatic" storage duration (you can actually declare a variable as auto, but this is the default if no other storage type is specified so the keyword isn't really used in practice, but this is where it comes from)
Automatic storage duration means exactly what it sounds like, the duration of the variable is handled automatically. By contrast, anything allocated on the heap has to be manually deleted by you.
Here's an example:
void foo() {
bar b;
bar* b2 = new bar();
}
This function creates three values worth considering:
On line 1, it declares a variable b of type bar on the stack (automatic duration).
On line 2, it declares a bar pointer b2 on the stack (automatic duration), and calls new, allocating a bar object on the heap. (dynamic duration)
When the function returns, the following will happen:
First, b2 goes out of scope (order of destruction is always opposite of order of construction). But b2 is just a pointer, so nothing happens, the memory it occupies is simply freed. And importantly, the memory it points to (the bar instance on the heap) is NOT touched. Only the pointer is freed, because only the pointer had automatic duration.
Second, b goes out of scope, so since it has automatic duration, its destructor is called, and the memory is freed.
And the barinstance on the heap? It's probably still there. No one bothered to delete it, so we've leaked memory.
From this example, we can see that anything with automatic duration is guaranteed to have its destructor called when it goes out of scope. That's useful. But anything allocated on the heap lasts as long as we need it to, and can be dynamically sized, as in the case of arrays. That is also useful. We can use that to manage our memory allocations. What if the Foo class allocated some memory on the heap in its constructor, and deleted that memory in its destructor. Then we could get the best of both worlds, safe memory allocations that are guaranteed to be freed again, but without the limitations of forcing everything to be on the stack.
And that is pretty much exactly how most C++ code works.
Look at the standard library's std::vector for example. That is typically allocated on the stack, but can be dynamically sized and resized. And it does this by internally allocating memory on the heap as necessary. The user of the class never sees this, so there's no chance of leaking memory, or forgetting to clean up what you allocated.
This principle is called RAII (Resource Acquisition is Initialization), and it can be extended to any resource that must be acquired and released. (network sockets, files, database connections, synchronization locks). All of them can be acquired in the constructor, and released in the destructor, so you're guaranteed that all resources you acquire will get freed again.
As a general rule, never use new/delete directly from your high level code. Always wrap it in a class that can manage the memory for you, and which will ensure it gets freed again. (Yes, there may be exceptions to this rule. In particular, smart pointers require you to call new directly, and pass the pointer to its constructor, which then takes over and ensures delete is called correctly. But this is still a very important rule of thumb)
The short answer is: if you're a beginner in C++, you should never be using new or delete yourself.
Instead, you should use smart pointers such as std::unique_ptr and std::make_unique (or less often, std::shared_ptr and std::make_shared). That way, you don't have to worry nearly as much about memory leaks. And even if you're more advanced, best practice would usually be to encapsulate the custom way you're using new and delete into a small class (such as a custom smart pointer) that is dedicated just to object lifecycle issues.
Of course, behind the scenes, these smart pointers are still performing dynamic allocation and deallocation, so code using them would still have the associated runtime overhead. Other answers here have covered these issues, and how to make design decisions on when to use smart pointers versus just creating objects on the stack or incorporating them as direct members of an object, well enough that I won't repeat them. But my executive summary would be: don't use smart pointers or dynamic allocation until something forces you to.
Which method should I use?
This is almost never determined by your typing preferences but by the context. If you need to keep the object across a few stacks or if it's too heavy for the stack you allocate it on the free store. Also, since you are allocating an object, you are also responsible for releasing the memory. Lookup the delete operator.
To ease the burden of using free-store management people have invented stuff like auto_ptr and unique_ptr. I strongly recommend you take a look at these. They might even be of help to your typing issues ;-)
If you are writing in C++ you are probably writing for performance. Using new and the free store is much slower than using the stack (especially when using threads) so only use it when you need it.
As others have said, you need new when your object needs to live outside the function or object scope, the object is really large or when you don't know the size of an array at compile time.
Also, try to avoid ever using delete. Wrap your new into a smart pointer instead. Let the smart pointer call delete for you.
There are some cases where a smart pointer isn't smart. Never store std::auto_ptr<> inside a STL container. It will delete the pointer too soon because of copy operations inside the container. Another case is when you have a really large STL container of pointers to objects. boost::shared_ptr<> will have a ton of speed overhead as it bumps the reference counts up and down. The better way to go in that case is to put the STL container into another object and give that object a destructor that will call delete on every pointer in the container.
Without the new keyword you're storing that on call stack. Storing excessively large variables on stack will lead to stack overflow.
If your variable is used only within the context of a single function, you're better off using a stack variable, i.e., Option 2. As others have said, you do not have to manage the lifetime of stack variables - they are constructed and destructed automatically. Also, allocating/deallocating a variable on the heap is slow by comparison. If your function is called often enough, you'll see a tremendous performance improvement if use stack variables versus heap variables.
That said, there are a couple of obvious instances where stack variables are insufficient.
If the stack variable has a large memory footprint, then you run the risk of overflowing the stack. By default, the stack size of each thread is 1 MB on Windows. It is unlikely that you'll create a stack variable that is 1 MB in size, but you have to keep in mind that stack utilization is cumulative. If your function calls a function which calls another function which calls another function which..., the stack variables in all of these functions take up space on the same stack. Recursive functions can run into this problem quickly, depending on how deep the recursion is. If this is a problem, you can increase the size of the stack (not recommended) or allocate the variable on the heap using the new operator (recommended).
The other, more likely condition is that your variable needs to "live" beyond the scope of your function. In this case, you'd allocate the variable on the heap so that it can be reached outside the scope of any given function.
The simple answer is yes - new() creates an object on the heap (with the unfortunate side effect that you have to manage its lifetime (by explicitly calling delete on it), whereas the second form creates an object in the stack in the current scope and that object will be destroyed when it goes out of scope.
Are you passing myClass out of a function, or expecting it to exist outside that function? As some others said, it is all about scope when you aren't allocating on the heap. When you leave the function, it goes away (eventually). One of the classic mistakes made by beginners is the attempt to create a local object of some class in a function and return it without allocating it on the heap. I can remember debugging this kind of thing back in my earlier days doing c++.
C++ Core Guidelines R.11: Avoid using new and delete explicitly.
Things have changed significantly since most answers to this question were written. Specifically, C++ has evolved as a language, and the standard library is now richer. Why does this matter? Because of a combination of two factors:
Using new and delete is potentially dangerous: Memory might leak if you don't keep a very strong discipline of delete'ing everything you've allocated when it's no longer used; and never deleteing what's not currently allocated.
The standard library now offers smart pointers which encapsulate the new and delete calls, so that you don't have to take care of managing allocations on the free store/heap yourself. So do other containers, in the standard library and elsewhere.
This has evolved into one of the C++ community's "core guidelines" for writing better C++ code, as the linked document shows. Of course, there exceptions to this rule: Somebody needs to write those encapsulating classes which do use new and delete; but that someone is rarely yourself.
Adding to #DanielSchepler's valid answer:
The second method creates the instance on the stack, along with such things as something declared int and the list of parameters that are passed into the function.
The first method makes room for a pointer on the stack, which you've set to the location in memory where a new MyClass has been allocated on the heap - or free store.
The first method also requires that you delete what you create with new, whereas in the second method, the class is automatically destructed and freed when it falls out of scope (the next closing brace, usually).
The short answer is yes the "new" keyword is incredibly important as when you use it the object data is stored on the heap as opposed to the stack, which is most important!