Logo Questions Linux Laravel Mysql Ubuntu Git Menu
 

When should I use the new keyword in 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?

  1. With the new keyword...
    MyClass* myClass = new MyClass();     myClass->MyField = "Hello world!"; 
  1. 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).

like image 934
Nick Bolton Avatar asked Mar 17 '09 16:03

Nick Bolton


People also ask

What is the use of new keyword in C?

The new operator is an operator which denotes a request for memory allocation on the Heap. If sufficient memory is available, new operator initializes the memory and returns the address of the newly allocated and initialized memory to the pointer variable.

Does C support new keyword?

Use the new keyword to create an instance of the array. The new operator is used to create an object or instantiate an object. Here in the example an object is created for the class using the new.

What is the use of new operator?

The new operator lets developers create an instance of a user-defined object type or of one of the built-in object types that has a constructor function.

When should I use new in C++?

Use of the new operator signifies a request for the memory allocation on the heap. If the sufficient memory is available, it initializes the memory and returns its address to the pointer variable. The new operator should only be used if the data object should remain in memory until delete is called.


2 Answers

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
like image 70
Daniel LeCheminant Avatar answered Oct 17 '22 15:10

Daniel LeCheminant


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)

like image 43
jalf Avatar answered Oct 17 '22 17:10

jalf