U++ forum: Welcome to the forum

Status & Roadmap

Authors & License

Funding Ultimate++

Search on this site

Search in forums

Home » Extra libraries, Code snippets, applications etc. » C++ language problems and code snippets » What is the difference between the memory management in C and C++?

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend

Return to the default flat view

Create a new topic

Submit Reply

Re: What is the difference between the memory management in C and C++? [message #34963 is a reply to message #34716]

Wed, 21 December 2011 14:57

mdelfede is currently offline

mdelfede
Messages: 1307
Registered: September 2007

Ultimate Contributor

The *only* advantage using malloc is realloc() to reallocate blocks, which in many cases is by far more efficient than creating a new block and copying data on it.

BTW, realloc usage makes sense only on low level coding and with POD types, which is not the case of most c++ code.
Anyways, I think that a missing 'renew' is a bad thing for c++ and makes porting of old code painful sometimes.

Just last thing : mixing new + realloc and free or malloc and delete is an error which can bring *many* problems if you use a toolkit with custom allocators, as UPP.

Max

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

[Message index]

		What is the difference between the memory management in C and C++? By: duckworth on Wed, 07 December 2011 07:46
		Re: What is the difference between the memory management in C and C++? By: dolik.rce on Wed, 07 December 2011 08:52
		Re: What is the difference between the memory management in C and C++? By: mdelfede on Wed, 21 December 2011 14:57
		Re: What is the difference between the memory management in C and C++? By: nisha.kale1122 on Tue, 29 January 2019 13:10

Previous Topic:	UDP Server/Client with Winsock
Next Topic:	prototype not found

Goto Forum:

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

PDF

]

Current Time: Sun Apr 28 23:43:50 CEST 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.92915 seconds