CODEWITHSUNDEEP
c++carraysmemory-management
Imagist
Imagist

Reputation: 18514

How is *array* memory allocated and freed in C and C++?

My question specifically is in regards to arrays, not objects.

There a few questions on SO about malloc()/free() versus new/delete, but all of them focus on the differences in how they are used. I understand how they are used, but I don't understand what underlying differences cause the differences in usage.

I often hear C programmers say that malloc() and free() are costly operations, but I've never heard a C++ programmer say this about new and delete. I've also noticed that C++ doesn't have an operation that corresponds to C's realloc().

If I were writing an equivalent to C++'s vector class, I would want to avoid copying the entire array when resizing it, but with new and delete you have to copy. In C, I would simply realloc(). It's worth noting that realloc() might just copy the entire array, but my impression was that it used the same pointer and allocated less space for it, at least when sizing down.

So my question is, how do the algorithms used by malloc() and free() differ from those used by new and delete. More specifically, why does the C way have a stigma of being more expensive, and why doesn't the C++ way allow resizing without copying?

Upvotes: 4

Views: 2460

Answers (6)

WillW
WillW

Reputation: 891

To thoroughly generalise, C has traditionally been used in much more resource restricted environments, both because its been around longer and because it is used in embedded applications. The potential computational cost of malloc is therefore a worry, whereas C++ which is more commonly used on PCs doesn't worry so much.

new and delete may well be implemented by your compiler in a very similar way to malloc, but they have one difference (and this is why they exist) - they call the constructor and destructor for the relevant item.

When I say constructor, I do of course mean any initialisation required (filling out VTABLES, setting the initialisers etc.). This can potentially make new and delete slower, but in a side by side comparison (allocation and freeing an int for example) there is no fundamental difference.

Upvotes: 1

sharptooth
sharptooth

Reputation: 170499

Often new and delete use malloc() and free() for memory allocation/deallocation. Anyway they must use some primitives for memory allocation/deallocation - with overloading new and delete operators that could be something faster that malloc() and free() (say it can be functions working on a memory pool for fixed-size objects). Usually unless you've actually done such overloading you will not see any difference in costs of memory allocation done each of these ways.

Reallocation is not allowed simply because not all datatypes allow moving in memory - they need copy constructors and destructors invoked to be moved properly. For example you might have some graph node structures stored in an array. If you move them blindly the pointers pointing between objects will become invalid.

Upvotes: 2

moogs
moogs

Reputation: 8202

i dunno about the C "stigma", but for resizing C++. you can use placement new to customize the behavior of new.

But why do it? Let the compiler makers do what they do best!

Upvotes: 1

anon
anon

Reputation:

"new and delete can be costly operations" - there, you have now heard a C++ programmer say it. But seriously, dynamic memory allocation costs the same in both languages.

Upvotes: 1

David Cournapeau
David Cournapeau

Reputation: 80710

they fundamentally use the same techniques for allocation - certainly, on most implementations, the default C++ runtime new will not be much faster than malloc. One of the big difference is that you can rewrite allocator in C++ so that you can use allocators optimized to your expected memory behavior - you can do that in C as well of course, but it is a bit more cumbersome syntax-wise.

Upvotes: 0

RichieHindle
RichieHindle

Reputation: 281495

There's no real difference under the hood - usually the default new and delete operators will simply call through to malloc and free.

As for "the stigma of being more expensive", my theory is this: back in the day, every cycle counted, and the time taken by malloc really was significant in many situations. But by the time C++ came along, hardware was much faster and the time taken by the free store manager was proportionally less significant. The emphasis was shifting from efficient use of machine resources to efficient use of programmer resources.

Why C++ lacks a realloc equivalent, I don't know.

Upvotes: 5

Related Questions