Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #4796 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Nephi Immortal <immortalnephi@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-05-07 19:11 -0700 |
| Last post | 2011-05-10 13:29 -0700 |
| Articles | 3 on this page of 23 — 8 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++
Customize operator new / delete Nephi Immortal <immortalnephi@gmail.com> - 2011-05-07 19:11 -0700
Re: Customize operator new / delete Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-08 15:05 +1200
Re: Customize operator new / delete James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-05-08 07:38 -0700
Re: Customize operator new / delete "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-05-08 19:05 +0200
Re: Customize operator new / delete Nephi Immortal <immortalnephi@gmail.com> - 2011-05-08 15:35 -0700
Re: Customize operator new / delete Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-09 10:45 +1200
Re: Customize operator new / delete James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-05-10 13:25 -0700
Re: Customize operator new / delete "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-05-11 09:31 +0200
Re: Customize operator new / delete "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-05-11 09:56 +0200
Re: Customize operator new / delete James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-05-15 06:14 -0700
Re: Customize operator new / delete Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-05-15 23:54 -0700
Re: Customize operator new / delete Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-16 19:43 +1200
Re: Customize operator new / delete Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-16 12:53 +0100
Re: Customize operator new / delete "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-05-18 17:32 +0200
Re: Customize operator new / delete Pete Becker <pete@versatilecoding.com> - 2011-05-18 12:38 -0400
Re: Customize operator new / delete James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-05-15 06:12 -0700
Re: Customize operator new / delete "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-05-08 18:44 +0200
Re: Customize operator new / delete Nephi Immortal <immortalnephi@gmail.com> - 2011-05-08 15:43 -0700
Re: Customize operator new / delete "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-05-09 08:47 +0200
Re: Customize operator new / delete Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-09 12:58 +0100
Re: Customize operator new / delete "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-05-10 08:15 +0200
Re: Customize operator new / delete Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2011-05-10 12:39 +0100
Re: Customize operator new / delete James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> - 2011-05-10 13:29 -0700
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
| From | "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-10 08:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4dc8d7ab$0$38652$4fafbaef@reader1.news.tin.it> |
| In reply to | #4831 |
"Leigh Johnston" <leigh@i42.co.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio > Typically there will be different code at the call site rather than in the > delete functions themselves for example the extra new[] bookkeeping > information added after the new[] allocation will be used to call the correct > number of destructors before deallocation. so "delete []" and "delete" to a pointer are the same
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-10 12:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <cuWdnXvNmvF3vlTQnZ2dnUVZ8lCdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #4849 |
On 10/05/2011 07:15, io_x wrote: > "Leigh Johnston"<leigh@i42.co.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio > >> Typically there will be different code at the call site rather than in the >> delete functions themselves for example the extra new[] bookkeeping >> information added after the new[] allocation will be used to call the correct >> number of destructors before deallocation. > > so "delete []" and "delete" to a pointer are the same No they are not the same as they are treated differently by the compiler when deleting an array of objects with destructors; i.e. the compiler will emit different assembly instructions at the call site of delete[] than at the call site of delete (similarly for new[] and new). /Leigh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-05-10 13:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9326eef5-c7fc-491d-bd30-6318ac5c539c@f9g2000vbz.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #4826 |
On May 9, 7:47 am, "io_x" <a...@b.c.invalid> wrote:
> "Nephi Immortal" <immortalne...@gmail.com> ha scritto nel messaggionews:7dbad185-521d-449c-b491-b60af6964602@n10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
[...]
> but i don't understand well too why use 2 delete function
> if they do the same:
Because they aren't required to do the same. If the two
operator new do something different, then the two operator
delete must also. Typically, of course, operator new[] will
just call operator new, and operator delete[] will just call
operator delete. The standard also guarantees this for the
library implementations, so if you just overload operators new
and delete, you should catch all of the memory allocations.
--
James Kanze
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web