Related
This question already has answers here:
Closed 13 years ago.
I think we all understand the necessity of delete when reassigning a dynamically-allocated pointer in order to prevent memory leaks. However, I'm curious, to what extent does the C++ mandate the usage of delete? For example, take the following program
int main()
{
int* arr = new int[5];
return 0;
}
While for all intents and purposes no leak occurs here (since your program is ending and the OS will clean up all memory once it returns), but does the standard still require -- or recommend -- the usage of delete[] in this case? If not, would there be any other reason why you would delete[] here?
There is nothing that requires a delete[] in the standard - However, I would say it is a very good guideline to follow.
However, it is better practice to use a delete or delete[] with every new or new[] operation, even if the memory will be cleaned up by the program termination.
Many custom objects will have a destructor that does other logic than just cleaning up the memory. Using delete guarantees the destruction in these cases.
Also, if you ever move around your routines, you are less likely to cause memory leaks in other places in your code.
Dupe of Is there a reason to call delete in C++ when a program is exiting anyway?
Answer is that because of destructors that need to be run, it is sometimes necessary to delete the object before exiting the program. Also, many memory leak detection tools will complain if you don't do this, so to make it easier to find real memory leaks, you should try and delete all of your objects before exiting.
Please see:
When to use "new" and when not to, in C++?
About constructors/destructors and new/delete operators in C++ for custom objects
delete and delete [] the same in Visual C++?
Why is there a special new and delete for arrays?
How to track memory allocations in C++ (especially new/delete)
Array of structs and new / delete
What is the difference between new/delete and malloc/free?
Here no. But as the program gets larger and more complex I would manage my memory so that I can track down bugs faster. The standard says nothing but getting into good habits in the smaller case leads to better code long term.
You are perfectly free to forget to delete things.
Do you like wasting memory?
I don't know the Standard, but there is a whole programming style around this question: crash-only softxare
Theoretically databases or OS kernels should be developed as such, but often it's not really practical to use them like that because on restart there is some cleanup that can be long. Moreover dependent systems (programs inside an OS or database clients) might not be crash-only.
I came across an issue which I could not resolve.
My question is, if I used malloc to allocate memory and then memory block is delete using delete?
The general thumb rule is
If we allocate memory using malloc, it should be deleted using free.
If we allocate memory using new, it should be deleted using delete.
Now, in order to check what happens if we do the reverse, I wrote a small code.
#include<iostream>
#include<cstdio>
#include<cstdlib>
using namespace std;
class A
{
int p=10;
public:
int lol() {
return p;
}
};
int main()
{
int *a = (int *)malloc(sizeof(int)*5);
for(int i=0; i<4; i++) {
a[i] = i;
cout << a[i] << endl;
}
delete(a);
// Works fine till here..
A b;
cout << b.lol() << endl;
free(b); // Causes error.
return 0;
}
The error which I get is:
error: cannot convert ‘A’ to ‘void*’ for argument ‘1’ to ‘void
free(void*)’
I am unable to understand why is this happening. Please explain.
When you call delete a pointer, the compiler will call the dtor of the class for you automatically, but free won't. (Also new will call ctor of the class, malloc won't.)
In you example, a char array apparently don't have a dtor, so delete does nothing but return the memory. That's why it's okay. (Or vise versa, new a char array and then free it.)
But there can still be a problem: what if new and malloc are borrowing memory from different heap manager?
Imagine that, you borrow money from people A, and return to people B later. Even if you are okay with that, have you ever consider A's feeling?
BTW, you should use delete [] pArray; to free an array allocated using new[].
The free function expects a pointer to memory allocated by malloc. The compiler is simply telling you that did not pass it a pointer, a fact that it can readily prove. I guess you meant to create an object with new and then call free on the address of that object. But you did not call new.
When you correct this you may well find the free succeeds but you should not read anything significant into any such success. You know the rules, they are clearly stated in your documentation. It is incorrect to do what you are attempting. The behaviour is undefined. There's little to be gained from an experiment like this. You won't learn anything about why the C memory management functions cannot be paired with C++ memory management functions.
The problem with your experiment is that is has no power. You can just show the outcome for one specific scenario. But these functions are designed to work across the board. How are you going to test every single possible scenario?
Never program using trial and error. You must always understand the rules and priciples behind what you do.
Your b variable is not a pointer, but a stack-allocated A. If you want to try this experiment, then you'd want to say
A* b = new A;
free(b);
I'm all for experimentation, but I'm not sure what you were trying to achieve here.
In C++, operator new doesn't just allocate memory, it runs constructors too. Similarly, delete runs destructors for you (taking polymorphic classes into account), as well as freeing the returned memory. On the other hand, malloc() and free() are just C library routines which (from a programmer's point of view) do nothing more than request a chunk of memory from the operating system, and then hand it back.
Now, for a simple, POD class with trivial constructors and destructors, you might be able to get away with mixing up C and C++ memory allocation, because there's nothing C++-specific to be done. But even if you do, what does it prove? It's undefined behaviour, and it probably won't work on another compiler. It might not work tomorrow.
If you use any C++ features -- inheritance, virtual functions, etc etc, it very definitely won't work, because new and delete have to do a lot more work than just allocating memory.
So please, stick to the rules! :-)
You didn't create b using new so you are not testing the intended hypothesis. (Also, the name of b is not a pointer.)
Anyway, malloc/new and delete/free work interchangeably only as long as their implementations are interchangeable. In simple cases and on simpler platforms this is more likely, but it's a risky bet in the long term or as a habit.
For example, the array form of new, when applied to a class with a nontrivial destructor, requires the implementation (compiler, runtime, etc.) to remember the size of the array so that delete may call the destructor for each array object. There is almost nowhere to put such information but in the dynamically allocated block itself, preceding the memory location referred to by the pointer returned by new. Passing this pointer to free would then require the memory allocator to determine the actual start of the allocation block, which it may or may not be able to do.
More generally, new and malloc may refer to completely different memory allocators. The compiler, runtime library, and OS work together to provide memory to your program. The details can change as a result of switching or upgrading any of these components.
From the documentation,
void free (void* ptr);
ptr::
Pointer to a memory block previously allocated with malloc, calloc or
realloc.
And what you are passing is not a pointer, so it complains.
A *b = new A();
cout << b->lol() << endl;
free(b); // Will Not cause error
No, it is not a rule of thumb that you should not mix new/free or malloc/delete.
Sure, it might be possible to use free to relinquish an allocation you obtained with new without a crash, but it is highly implementation/system specific.
Ignoring the fact that you're bypassing destructors or writing code that will corrupt memory on some systems, the more fundamental, more basic C++ consideration is really simply this:
malloc/free are global, system functions, while new and delete are operators.
struct X {
void* operator new(size_t);
void operator delete(void* object);
};
Sure - you can borrow a book from Amazon and return it to your local library: go there late one night and leave it on their front door step.
It's going to have undefined behavior, up to and including your getting arrested - and I'm talking about mixing new/free again here :)
Put another way: malloc and free deal with raw memory allocations, while new and delete deal with objects, and that's a very different thing.
void* p = new std::vector<int>(100);
void* q = malloc(sizeof(*q));
Many good reasons have already been given. I'll add one more reason: the new operator can be overriden in c++. This allows the user to specify their own memory management model if they so desire. Although this is pretty uncommon, its existence is just one more reason why malloc and new, delete and free cannot be used interchangeably. This is for the reason described by #Patz.
free() accepts a pointer.
You are passing an object (not a pointe) to free. That is why you are getting the error. If you make below change, your code works fine.
A *a = new A;
free(a);
Though the code above works fine, it will lead to a memory leak because free() doesn't call the destructor, which is responsible for freeing the resource(s) created by the constructor.
I am working on modifying a relatively large C++ program, where unfortunately it is not always clear whether someone before me used C or C++ syntax (this is in the electrical engineering department at a university, and we EEs are always tempted to use C for everything, and unfortunately in this case, people can actually get away with it).
However, if someone creates an object:
Packet* thePacket = new Packet();
Does it matter whether it is destroyed with delete thePacket; or free(thePacket); ?
I realize that delete calls the destructor while free() does not, but Packet does not have a destructor. I am having a terrible time stuck in a memory management swamp here and I'm thinking this may be one of the many problems.
Yes it does matter.
For memory obtained using new you must use delete.
For memory obtained using malloc you must use free.
new and malloc may use different data structures internally to keep track of what and where it has allocated memory. So in order to free memory, you have to call that corresponding function that knows about those data structures. It is however generally a bad idea to mix these two types of memory allocation in a piece of code.
If you call free(), the destructor doesn't get called.
Also, there's no guarantee that new and free operate on the same heap.
You can also override new and delete to operate specially on a particular class. If you do so, but call free() instead of the custom delete, then you miss whatever special behavior you had written into delete. (But you probably wouldn't be asking this question if you had done that, because you'd know what behaviors you were missing..)
Packet has a destructor, even if you haven't explicitly declared one. It has a default destructor. The default destructor probably doesn't actually do much, but you can't count on that being the case. It's up to the compiler what it does.
new and malloc also may have wildly different implementations. For example, delete is always called in a context where it has perfect information about the size of the data structure it's deleting at compile time. free does not have this luxury. It's possible that the allocator that new is using may not store the bytes at the beginning of the memory area stating how many bytes it occupies. This would lead free to do entirely the wrong thing and crash your program when freeing something allocated with new.
Personally, if getting people to do the right thing or fixing the code yourself is completely impossible, I would declare my own global operator new that called malloc so then free would definitely not crash, even though it would still not call the destructor and be generally really ugly.
In short, it is as bad as undefined behavior.
This is quiet self explanatory.
C Standard ($7.20.3.2/2) - "The free
function causes the space pointed to
by ptr to be deallocated, that is,
made available for further allocation.
If ptr is a null pointer, no action
occurs. Otherwise, if the argument
does not match a pointer earlier
returned by the calloc, malloc, or
realloc function, or if the space has
been deallocated by a call to free or
realloc, the behavior is undefined."
You are absolutely right, it is NOT correct. As you said yourself, free won't call the destructor. Even if Packet doesn't have an explicit destructor, it's using an inherited one.
Using free on an object created with new is like destroying only what a shallow-copy would reach. Deep-destroying NEEDS the destructor function.
Also, I'm not sure objects created with new() are on the same memory map as malloc()'d memory. They are not guaranteed to be, I think.
if someone creates an object:
Packet* thePacket = new Packet();
Does it matter whether is is destroyed with delete thePacket; or free(thePacket); ?
Yes it does matter. free (thePacket) would invoke Undefined Behaviour but delete thePacket would not and we all know Undefined Behaviour may have disastrous consequences.
When, if ever, can delete and free be used interchangeably in C++?
My concern is as follows: Say there is an incorrect mixup in the use of malloc/ free and
new/ delete (not to mention new[]/ delete[]). However delete and free doing the same thing;
Fortuitously so this goes uncaught in testing. Later this may lead to a crash in production.
How can I enforce some kind of check to prevent this? Can I be warned if the two are mixed up?
If not at compile time, perhaps some code instrumentation at run time? How would I approach
this?
The intention of this question is to find ways to avoid inadvertent mix up in the usages.
The easy way to not get them mixed up is never to use malloc(), then you will never be tempted to call free(). The infrastructure to create to avoid this problem is called "code review", though in this case a quick "grep malloc(" or "grep free(" on the codebase will probably suffice.
Never. If it works it's by sheer accident of implementation. Do not rely on this behavior.
To answer the second question, if you control both malloc/free and operator new/delete, you can stash extra information to associate with pointers returned by both that tell you how they were allocated. When a pointer is passed to free or operator delete, check to see that it was allocated by the appropriate function. If not, assert or raise an exception or do whatever it is you do to report the mismatch.
Usually this is done by allocating extra memory, e.g., given malloc(size) or operator new(size), you allocate size + additional space and shove extra information in there.
The only way you can ensure you never get them mixed up is by either:
Never using malloc/free in the first place, or
Rely on RAII for your memory allocations. Protect every memory allocation in a RAII object which ensures the memory get correctly and consistently freed when it goes out of scope, or wrap the allocation in a smart pointer.
Manually calling delete or free is just an invitation for bugs.
You should always use new and delete in C++, as only new and delete will call the object's constructor and destructor.
If you find you must use both (for instance, if you're interfacing with a C library), thorough code reviews should carefully scrutinize any uses of free() to determine whether or not they correspond to a malloc(), and whether or not they are being used in a C context.
If I had to codify it, I'd put in the style guide something like this:
free() may be called only on a private pointer field of an object.
malloc()ed buffers (or buffers returned from a C API which caller must free()) must be assigned to a private pointer field of an object.
private pointer fields which hold free()-able buffers must only be used for that purpose.
if you use hungarian notation, add a letter for it (and if you don't, don't).
generally free() will be called only in a destructor, with exceptions when the free()-able buffer is replaced during the lifetime of the object. In that case you can call free() on a value recently copied out of a private field during replacement, rather than on the field value directly.
In other words, stick a wrapper around anything that uses malloc/free. This wrapper could be a single template everyone uses, or you could allow smart pointers with the deletor function set to free(). Then in code review, if you see a call to malloc/free anywhere else, it's wrong.
Basically the best way to stop this being a problem is to be on top of your resource handling in general. In C, people do not have a major problem with accidentally calling free() on streams instead of fclose().
You should always use delete or delete[] when freeing things allocated with new. The same goes for malloc and free.
If using free for deleting new:ed classes the destructor won't be properly called.
Also new and delete doesn't necessarily use malloc/free for its allocations so you might end up corrupting your heap as well.
always use delete for things allocated with new, delete [] for things allocated with new [] and free() for things allocated using malloc().
new and new[] allocate from different heaps than malloc() and using the wrong free()/delete will attempt to deallocate from the wrong heap.
Never mix new/delete with new[]/delete[] or with malloc()/free(). Atop of this, the use of malloc()/free() in C++ is questionable at least.
The easiest way to make sure you never do this accidentally is to not to manage memory manually. In C++ there strings and other containers as well as smart pointers to take care of memory management. There simply isn't a need to do this manually. (I'm not sure whether the last time I remember me typing delete really was the last time I typed it. But if my memory doesn't fail me, this must have been 2001 or 2002.)
You could write your own version of the functions which allocate some extra memory in new/new[]/malloc to track which one did the allocation. Then check in delete/delete[]/free that the right function was used to re-claim the memory. You can also check for things like mixing new[] and delete (without the []) this way. You might want to only use these versions in the debug build.
You could try running valgrind on your application to see if it catches anything. The manual specifically mentions its ability to catch uses of the wrong deallocation function for a block of memory. I don't think there's a way to do this at compile time, however.
One way to avoid misusage of malloc/free or new/delete is that DO NOT call these function directly, call them by a wrapper layer. In the wrapper layer, you can manage the pointers distributed by your own hands and guarantee that misusage will get an error explicitly.
Why dont you just count the total number of malloc statments and tally that with the total count of free? Do the same for New and delete. The process can be automated with regular expressions.
One thing I've done relating to this is to reimplement malloc and free
in C++, so that it calls new/delete under the hood. It's not
optimal, but it serves well enough on a smaller project.
I have been working on some legacy C++ code that uses variable length structures (TAPI), where the structure size will depend on variable length strings. The structures are allocated by casting array new thus:
STRUCT* pStruct = (STRUCT*)new BYTE[sizeof(STRUCT) + nPaddingSize];
Later on however the memory is freed using a delete call:
delete pStruct;
Will this mix of array new[] and non-array delete cause a memory leak or would it depend on the compiler? Would I be better off changing this code to use malloc and free instead?
Technically I believe it could cause a problem with mismatched allocators, though in practice I don't know of any compiler that would not do the right thing with this example.
More importantly if STRUCT where to have (or ever be given) a destructor then it would invoke the destructor without having invoked the corresponding constructor.
Of course, if you know where pStruct came from why not just cast it on delete to match the allocation:
delete [] (BYTE*) pStruct;
I personally think you'd be better off using std::vector to manage your memory, so you don't need the delete.
std::vector<BYTE> backing(sizeof(STRUCT) + nPaddingSize);
STRUCT* pStruct = (STRUCT*)(&backing[0]);
Once backing leaves scope, your pStruct is no longer valid.
Or, you can use:
boost::scoped_array<BYTE> backing(new BYTE[sizeof(STRUCT) + nPaddingSize]);
STRUCT* pStruct = (STRUCT*)backing.get();
Or boost::shared_array if you need to move ownership around.
Yes it will cause a memory leak.
See this except from C++ Gotchas: http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=30642 for why.
Raymond Chen has an explanation of how vector new and delete differ from the scalar versions under the covers for the Microsoft compiler... Here:
http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2004/02/03/66660.aspx
IMHO you should fix the delete to:
delete [] pStruct;
rather than switching to malloc/free, if only because it's a simpler change to make without making mistakes ;)
And, of course, the simpler to make change that I show above is wrong due to the casting in the original allocation, it should be
delete [] reinterpret_cast<BYTE *>(pStruct);
so, I guess it's probably as easy to switch to malloc/free after all ;)
The behaviour of the code is undefined. You may be lucky (or not) and it may work with your compiler, but really that's not correct code. There's two problems with it:
The delete should be an array delete [].
The delete should be called on a pointer to the same type as the type allocated.
So to be entirely correct, you want to be doing something like this:
delete [] (BYTE*)(pStruct);
The C++ standard clearly states:
delete-expression:
::opt delete cast-expression
::opt delete [ ] cast-expression
The first alternative is for non-array objects, and the second is for arrays. The operand shall have a pointer type, or a class type having a single conversion function (12.3.2) to a pointer type. The result has type void.
In the first alternative (delete object), the value of the operand of delete shall be a pointer to a non-array object [...] If not, the behavior is undefined.
The value of the operand in delete pStruct is a pointer to an array of char, independent of its static type (STRUCT*). Therefore, any discussion of memory leaks is quite pointless, because the code is ill-formed, and a C++ compiler is not required to produce a sensible executable in this case.
It could leak memory, it could not, or it could do anything up to crashing your system. Indeed, a C++ implementation with which I tested your code aborts the program execution at the point of the delete expression.
As highlighted in other posts:
1) Calls to new/delete allocate memory and may call constructors/destructors (C++ '03 5.3.4/5.3.5)
2) Mixing array/non-array versions of new and delete is undefined behaviour. (C++ '03 5.3.5/4)
Looking at the source it appears that someone did a search and replace for malloc and free and the above is the result. C++ does have a direct replacement for these functions, and that is to call the allocation functions for new and delete directly:
STRUCT* pStruct = (STRUCT*)::operator new (sizeof(STRUCT) + nPaddingSize);
// ...
pStruct->~STRUCT (); // Call STRUCT destructor
::operator delete (pStruct);
If the constructor for STRUCT should be called, then you could consider allocating the memory and then use placement new:
BYTE * pByteData = new BYTE[sizeof(STRUCT) + nPaddingSize];
STRUCT * pStruct = new (pByteData) STRUCT ();
// ...
pStruct->~STRUCT ();
delete[] pByteData;
#eric - Thanks for the comments. You keep saying something though, that drives me nuts:
Those run-time libraries handle the
memory management calls to the OS in a
OS independent consistent syntax and
those run-time libraries are
responsible for making malloc and new
work consistently between OSes such as
Linux, Windows, Solaris, AIX, etc....
This is not true. The compiler writer provides the implementation of the std libraries, for instance, and they are absolutely free to implement those in an OS dependent way. They're free, for instance, to make one giant call to malloc, and then manage memory within the block however they wish.
Compatibility is provided because the API of std, etc. is the same - not because the run-time libraries all turn around and call the exact same OS calls.
The various possible uses of the keywords new and delete seem to create a fair amount of confusion. There are always two stages to constructing dynamic objects in C++: the allocation of the raw memory and the construction of the new object in the allocated memory area. On the other side of the object lifetime there is the destruction of the object and the deallocation of the memory location where the object resided.
Frequently these two steps are performed by a single C++ statement.
MyObject* ObjPtr = new MyObject;
//...
delete MyObject;
Instead of the above you can use the C++ raw memory allocation functions operator new and operator delete and explicit construction (via placement new) and destruction to perform the equivalent steps.
void* MemoryPtr = ::operator new( sizeof(MyObject) );
MyObject* ObjPtr = new (MemoryPtr) MyObject;
// ...
ObjPtr->~MyObject();
::operator delete( MemoryPtr );
Notice how there is no casting involved, and only one type of object is constructed in the allocated memory area. Using something like new char[N] as a way to allocate raw memory is technically incorrect as, logically, char objects are created in the newly allocated memory. I don't know of any situation where it doesn't 'just work' but it blurs the distinction between raw memory allocation and object creation so I advise against it.
In this particular case, there is no gain to be had by separating out the two steps of delete but you do need to manually control the initial allocation. The above code works in the 'everything working' scenario but it will leak the raw memory in the case where the constructor of MyObject throws an exception. While this could be caught and solved with an exception handler at the point of allocation it is probably neater to provide a custom operator new so that the complete construction can be handled by a placement new expression.
class MyObject
{
void* operator new( std::size_t rqsize, std::size_t padding )
{
return ::operator new( rqsize + padding );
}
// Usual (non-placement) delete
// We need to define this as our placement operator delete
// function happens to have one of the allowed signatures for
// a non-placement operator delete
void operator delete( void* p )
{
::operator delete( p );
}
// Placement operator delete
void operator delete( void* p, std::size_t )
{
::operator delete( p );
}
};
There are a couple of subtle points here. We define a class placement new so that we can allocate enough memory for the class instance plus some user specifiable padding. Because we do this we need to provide a matching placement delete so that if the memory allocation succeeds but the construction fails, the allocated memory is automatically deallocated. Unfortunately, the signature for our placement delete matches one of the two allowed signatures for non-placement delete so we need to provide the other form of non-placement delete so that our real placement delete is treated as a placement delete. (We could have got around this by adding an extra dummy parameter to both our placement new and placement delete, but this would have required extra work at all the calling sites.)
// Called in one step like so:
MyObject* ObjectPtr = new (padding) MyObject;
Using a single new expression we are now guaranteed that memory won't leak if any part of the new expression throws.
At the other end of the object lifetime, because we defined operator delete (even if we hadn't, the memory for the object originally came from global operator new in any case), the following is the correct way to destroy the dynamically created object.
delete ObjectPtr;
Summary!
Look no casts! operator new and operator delete deal with raw memory, placement new can construct objects in raw memory. An explicit cast from a void* to an object pointer is usually a sign of something logically wrong, even if it does 'just work'.
We've completely ignored new[] and delete[]. These variable size objects will not work in arrays in any case.
Placement new allows a new expression not to leak, the new expression still evaluates to a pointer to an object that needs destroying and memory that needs deallocating. Use of some type of smart pointer may help prevent other types of leak. On the plus side we've let a plain delete be the correct way to do this so most standard smart pointers will work.
If you really must do this sort of thing, you should probably call operator new directly:
STRUCT* pStruct = operator new(sizeof(STRUCT) + nPaddingSize);
I believe calling it this way avoids calling constructors/destructors.
I am currently unable to vote, but slicedlime's answer is preferable to Rob Walker's answer, since the problem has nothing to do with allocators or whether or not the STRUCT has a destructor.
Also note that the example code does not necessarily result in a memory leak - it's undefined behavior. Pretty much anything could happen (from nothing bad to a crash far, far away).
The example code results in undefined behavior, plain and simple. slicedlime's answer is direct and to the point (with the caveat that the word 'vector' should be changed to 'array' since vectors are an STL thing).
This kind of stuff is covered pretty well in the C++ FAQ (Sections 16.12, 16.13, and 16.14):
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/freestore-mgmt.html#faq-16.12
It's an array delete ([]) you're referring to, not a vector delete.
A vector is std::vector, and it takes care of deletion of its elements.
You'd could cast back to a BYTE * and the delete:
delete[] (BYTE*)pStruct;
Yes that may, since your allocating with new[] but deallocating with delelte, yes malloc/free is safer here, but in c++ you should not use them since they won't handle (de)constructors.
Also your code will call the deconstructor, but not the constructor. For some structs this may cause a memory leak (if the constructor allocated further memory, eg for a string)
Better would be to do it correctly, as this will also correctly call any constructors and deconstructors
STRUCT* pStruct = new STRUCT;
...
delete pStruct;
It's always best to keep acquisition/release of any resource as balanced as possible.
Although leaking or not is hard to say in this case. It depends on the compiler's implementation of the vector (de)allocation.
BYTE * pBytes = new BYTE [sizeof(STRUCT) + nPaddingSize];
STRUCT* pStruct = reinterpret_cast< STRUCT* > ( pBytes ) ;
// do stuff with pStruct
delete [] pBytes ;
Len: the problem with that is that pStruct is a STRUCT*, but the memory allocated is actually a BYTE[] of some unknown size. So delete[] pStruct will not de-allocate all of the allocated memory.
You're sort of mixing C and C++ ways of doing things. Why allocate more than the size of a STRUCT? Why not just "new STRUCT"? If you must do this then it might be clearer to use malloc and free in this case, since then you or other programmers might be a little less likely to make assumptions about the types and sizes of the allocated objects.
#Matt Cruikshank
You should pay attention and read what I wrote again because I never suggested not calling delete[] and just let the OS clean up. And you're wrong about the C++ run-time libraries managing the heap. If that were the case then C++ would not be portable as is today and a crashing application would never get cleaned up by the OS. (acknowledging there are OS specific run-times that make C/C++ appear non-portable). I challenge you to find stdlib.h in the Linux sources from kernel.org. The new keyword in C++ actually is talking to the same memory management routines as malloc.
The C++ run-time libraries make OS system calls and it's the OS that manages the heaps. You are partly correct in that the run-time libraries indicate when to release the memory however, they don't actually walk any heap tables directly. In other words, the runtime you link against does not add code to your application to walk heaps to allocate or deallocate. This is the case in Windows, Linux, Solaris, AIX, etc... It's also the reason you won't fine malloc in any Linux's kernel source nor will you find stdlib.h in Linux source. Understand these modern operating system have virtual memory managers that complicates things a bit further.
Ever wonder why you can make a call to malloc for 2G of RAM on a 1G box and still get back a valid memory pointer?
Memory management on x86 processors is managed within Kernel space using three tables. PAM (Page Allocation Table), PD (Page Directories) and PT (Page Tables). This is at the hardware level I'm speaking of. One of the things the OS memory manager does, not your C++ application, is to find out how much physical memory is installed on the box during boot with help of BIOS calls. The OS also handles exceptions such as when you try to access memory your application does not have rights too. (GPF General Protection Fault).
It may be that we are saying the same thing Matt, but I think you may be confusing the under hood functionality a bit. I use to maintain a C/C++ compiler for a living...
#ericmayo - cripes. Well, experimenting with VS2005, I can't get an honest leak out of scalar delete on memory that was made by vector new. I guess the compiler behavior is "undefined" here, is about the best defense I can muster.
You've got to admit though, it's a really lousy practice to do what the original poster said.
If that were the case then C++ would
not be portable as is today and a
crashing application would never get
cleaned up by the OS.
This logic doesn't really hold, though. My assertion is that a compiler's runtime can manage the memory within the memory blocks that the OS returns to it. This is how most virtual machines work, so your argument against portability in this case don't make much sense.
#Matt Cruikshank
"Well, experimenting with VS2005, I can't get an honest leak out of scalar delete on memory that was made by vector new. I guess the compiler behavior is "undefined" here, is about the best defense I can muster."
I disagree that it's a compiler behavior or even a compiler issue. The 'new' keyword gets compiled and linked, as you pointed out, to run-time libraries. Those run-time libraries handle the memory management calls to the OS in a OS independent consistent syntax and those run-time libraries are responsible for making malloc and new work consistently between OSes such as Linux, Windows, Solaris, AIX, etc.... This is the reason I mentioned the portability argument; an attempt to prove to you that the run-time does not actually manage memory either.
The OS manages memory.
The run-time libs interface to the OS.. On Windows, this is the virtual memory manager DLLs. This is why stdlib.h is implemented within the GLIB-C libraries and not the Linux kernel source; if GLIB-C is used on other OSes, it's implementation of malloc changes to make the correct OS calls. In VS, Borland, etc.. you will never find any libraries that ship with their compilers that actually manage memory either. You will, however, find OS specific definitions for malloc.
Since we have the source to Linux, you can go look at how malloc is implemented there. You will see that malloc is actually implemented in the GCC compiler which, in turn, basically makes two Linux system calls into the kernel to allocate memory. Never, malloc itself, actually managing memory!
And don't take it from me. Read the source code to Linux OS or you can see what K&R say about it... Here is a PDF link to the K&R on C.
http://www.oberon2005.ru/paper/kr_c.pdf
See near end of Page 149:
"Calls to malloc and free may occur in any order; malloc calls
upon the operating system to obtain more memory as necessary. These routines illustrate some of the considerations involved in writing machine-dependent code in a relatively machineindependent way, and also show a real-life application of structures, unions and typedef."
"You've got to admit though, it's a really lousy practice to do what the original poster said."
Oh, I don't disagree there. My point was that the original poster's code was not conducive of a memory leak. That's all I was saying. I didn't chime in on the best practice side of things. Since the code is calling delete, the memory is getting free up.
I agree, in your defense, if the original poster's code never exited or never made it to the delete call, that the code could have a memory leak but since he states that later on he sees the delete getting called. "Later on however the memory is freed using a delete call:"
Moreover, my reason for responding as I did was due to the OP's comment "variable length structures (TAPI), where the structure size will depend on variable length strings"
That comment sounded like he was questioning the dynamic nature of the allocations against the cast being made and was consequentially wondering if that would cause a memory leak. I was reading between the lines if you will ;).
In addition to the excellent answers above, I would also like to add:
If your code runs on linux or if you can compile it on linux then I would suggest running it through Valgrind. It is an excellent tool, among the myriad of useful warnings it produces it also will tell you when you allocate memory as an array and then free it as a non-array ( and vice-versa ).
Use operator new and delete:
struct STRUCT
{
void *operator new (size_t)
{
return new char [sizeof(STRUCT) + nPaddingSize];
}
void operator delete (void *memory)
{
delete [] reinterpret_cast <char *> (memory);
}
};
void main()
{
STRUCT *s = new STRUCT;
delete s;
}
I think the is no memory leak.
STRUCT* pStruct = (STRUCT*)new BYTE [sizeof(STRUCT) + nPaddingSize];
This gets translated into a memory allocation call within the operating system upon which a pointer to that memory is returned. At the time memory is allocated, the size of sizeof(STRUCT) and the size of nPaddingSize would be known in order to fulfill any memory allocation requests against the underlying operating system.
So the memory that is allocated is "recorded" in the operating system's global memory allocation tables. Memory tables are indexed by their pointers. So in the corresponding call to delete, all memory that was originally allocated is free. (memory fragmentation a popular subject in this realm as well).
You see, the C/C++ compiler is not managing memory, the underlying operating system is.
I agree there are cleaner methods but the OP did say this was legacy code.
In short, I don't see a memory leak as the accepted answer believes there to be one.
Rob Walker reply is good.
Just small addition, if you don't have any constructor or/and distructors, so you basically need allocate and free a chunk of raw memory, consider using free/malloc pair.
ericmayo.myopenid.com is so wrong, that someone with enough reputation should downvote him.
The C or C++ runtime libraries are managing the heap which is given to it in blocks by the Operating System, somewhat like you indicate, Eric. But it is the responsibility of the developer to indicate to the compiler which runtime calls should be made to free memory, and possibly destruct the objects that are there. Vector delete (aka delete[]) is necessary in this case, in order for the C++ runtime to leave the heap in a valid state. The fact that when the PROCESS terminates, the OS is smart enough to deallocate the underlying memory blocks is not something that developers should rely on. This would be like never calling delete at all.