Is delete *p an alternative to delete [] p?





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
}







11















The following code is from the Microsoft Documentation



int (**p) () = new (int (*[7]) ());

delete *p;


I think that delete p should be used here instead.



Is delete *p the same as delete p?






c++ arrays







share|improve this question




















  • 4





    delete *p differs from delete p.

    – Jarod42
    7 hours ago











  • You're right. They're not the same.

    – Cruz Jean
    7 hours ago






  • 1





    typedef would make thing clearer.

    – Jarod42
    7 hours ago













  • Anyway p[0] is not initialized. They have typo.

    – Jarod42
    7 hours ago











  • delete what was newed and delete what was newed. Though in modern code you should avoid most uses of new, it's no longer the preferred way of dynamically creating objects. See std::make_unique and std::make_shared instead or use a standard container.

    – François Andrieux
    7 hours ago




















11















The following code is from the Microsoft Documentation



int (**p) () = new (int (*[7]) ());

delete *p;


I think that delete p should be used here instead.



Is delete *p the same as delete p?






c++ arrays







share|improve this question




















  • 4





    delete *p differs from delete p.

    – Jarod42
    7 hours ago











  • You're right. They're not the same.

    – Cruz Jean
    7 hours ago






  • 1





    typedef would make thing clearer.

    – Jarod42
    7 hours ago













  • Anyway p[0] is not initialized. They have typo.

    – Jarod42
    7 hours ago











  • delete what was newed and delete what was newed. Though in modern code you should avoid most uses of new, it's no longer the preferred way of dynamically creating objects. See std::make_unique and std::make_shared instead or use a standard container.

    – François Andrieux
    7 hours ago
















11












11








11








The following code is from the Microsoft Documentation



int (**p) () = new (int (*[7]) ());

delete *p;


I think that delete p should be used here instead.



Is delete *p the same as delete p?






c++ arrays







share|improve this question
















The following code is from the Microsoft Documentation



int (**p) () = new (int (*[7]) ());

delete *p;


I think that delete p should be used here instead.



Is delete *p the same as delete p?






c++ arrays




c++ arrays






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 7 hours ago









Guillaume Racicot

16.1k53871




16.1k53871










asked 7 hours ago









xiaokaoyxiaokaoy

7152719




7152719








  • 4





    delete *p differs from delete p.

    – Jarod42
    7 hours ago











  • You're right. They're not the same.

    – Cruz Jean
    7 hours ago






  • 1





    typedef would make thing clearer.

    – Jarod42
    7 hours ago













  • Anyway p[0] is not initialized. They have typo.

    – Jarod42
    7 hours ago











  • delete what was newed and delete what was newed. Though in modern code you should avoid most uses of new, it's no longer the preferred way of dynamically creating objects. See std::make_unique and std::make_shared instead or use a standard container.

    – François Andrieux
    7 hours ago
















  • 4





    delete *p differs from delete p.

    – Jarod42
    7 hours ago











  • You're right. They're not the same.

    – Cruz Jean
    7 hours ago






  • 1





    typedef would make thing clearer.

    – Jarod42
    7 hours ago













  • Anyway p[0] is not initialized. They have typo.

    – Jarod42
    7 hours ago











  • delete what was newed and delete what was newed. Though in modern code you should avoid most uses of new, it's no longer the preferred way of dynamically creating objects. See std::make_unique and std::make_shared instead or use a standard container.

    – François Andrieux
    7 hours ago










4




4





delete *p differs from delete p.

– Jarod42
7 hours ago





delete *p differs from delete p.

– Jarod42
7 hours ago













You're right. They're not the same.

– Cruz Jean
7 hours ago





You're right. They're not the same.

– Cruz Jean
7 hours ago




1




1





typedef would make thing clearer.

– Jarod42
7 hours ago







typedef would make thing clearer.

– Jarod42
7 hours ago















Anyway p[0] is not initialized. They have typo.

– Jarod42
7 hours ago





Anyway p[0] is not initialized. They have typo.

– Jarod42
7 hours ago













delete what was newed and delete what was newed. Though in modern code you should avoid most uses of new, it's no longer the preferred way of dynamically creating objects. See std::make_unique and std::make_shared instead or use a standard container.

– François Andrieux
7 hours ago







delete what was newed and delete what was newed. Though in modern code you should avoid most uses of new, it's no longer the preferred way of dynamically creating objects. See std::make_unique and std::make_shared instead or use a standard container.

– François Andrieux
7 hours ago














2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















12














That code is invalid C++, because only pointers-to-objects can be deleted. *p has type int (*)(), which is a function pointer, not a pointer to an object.



Even MSVC itself does not compile it, even in permissive mode:



error C2541: 'delete': cannot delete objects that are not pointers


They should have used delete instead.






share|improve this answer


























  • In what context one may need to dynamically allocate pointers to functions?

    – Ayxan
    6 hours ago











  • @Ayxan That would be another question, but for instance you may want to have a list of arbitrary operations to execute.

    – Acorn
    6 hours ago











  • @Ayxan I have quickly posted it here: stackoverflow.com/q/55524710/9305398

    – Acorn
    6 hours ago











  • Even though this is specific to MSVC, g++ gives the following similar error when trying to compile: error: cannot delete expression of type 'int (*)()' .. seems odd that MS would have missed something that simple in their docs :/

    – txtechhelp
    5 hours ago





















-4















  1. This code specifically has a different issue as it tries to delete an inner element of an array so it will not compile. It would compile if you wrote delete p and not delete *p.

  2. You can use simple delete on an object allocated by new if It is an array of primitive types. Bad practice, ugly, yes. But not a mistake.

  3. The difference between delete and delete is that the former also calls destructors. For primitive types, however, it will call simple delete to free the memory internally anyway.

  4. Again, even if it works, you should avoid mixing operator types.






share|improve this answer
























  • delete calls destructors...

    – Acorn
    6 hours ago











  • Mixing operators is undefined behavior.

    – Ayxan
    6 hours ago












Your Answer






StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55524140%2fis-delete-p-an-alternative-to-delete-p%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









12














That code is invalid C++, because only pointers-to-objects can be deleted. *p has type int (*)(), which is a function pointer, not a pointer to an object.



Even MSVC itself does not compile it, even in permissive mode:



error C2541: 'delete': cannot delete objects that are not pointers


They should have used delete instead.






share|improve this answer


























  • In what context one may need to dynamically allocate pointers to functions?

    – Ayxan
    6 hours ago











  • @Ayxan That would be another question, but for instance you may want to have a list of arbitrary operations to execute.

    – Acorn
    6 hours ago











  • @Ayxan I have quickly posted it here: stackoverflow.com/q/55524710/9305398

    – Acorn
    6 hours ago











  • Even though this is specific to MSVC, g++ gives the following similar error when trying to compile: error: cannot delete expression of type 'int (*)()' .. seems odd that MS would have missed something that simple in their docs :/

    – txtechhelp
    5 hours ago


















12














That code is invalid C++, because only pointers-to-objects can be deleted. *p has type int (*)(), which is a function pointer, not a pointer to an object.



Even MSVC itself does not compile it, even in permissive mode:



error C2541: 'delete': cannot delete objects that are not pointers


They should have used delete instead.






share|improve this answer


























  • In what context one may need to dynamically allocate pointers to functions?

    – Ayxan
    6 hours ago











  • @Ayxan That would be another question, but for instance you may want to have a list of arbitrary operations to execute.

    – Acorn
    6 hours ago











  • @Ayxan I have quickly posted it here: stackoverflow.com/q/55524710/9305398

    – Acorn
    6 hours ago











  • Even though this is specific to MSVC, g++ gives the following similar error when trying to compile: error: cannot delete expression of type 'int (*)()' .. seems odd that MS would have missed something that simple in their docs :/

    – txtechhelp
    5 hours ago
















12












12








12







That code is invalid C++, because only pointers-to-objects can be deleted. *p has type int (*)(), which is a function pointer, not a pointer to an object.



Even MSVC itself does not compile it, even in permissive mode:



error C2541: 'delete': cannot delete objects that are not pointers


They should have used delete instead.






share|improve this answer















That code is invalid C++, because only pointers-to-objects can be deleted. *p has type int (*)(), which is a function pointer, not a pointer to an object.



Even MSVC itself does not compile it, even in permissive mode:



error C2541: 'delete': cannot delete objects that are not pointers


They should have used delete instead.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 7 hours ago

























answered 7 hours ago









AcornAcorn

6,20111341




6,20111341













  • In what context one may need to dynamically allocate pointers to functions?

    – Ayxan
    6 hours ago











  • @Ayxan That would be another question, but for instance you may want to have a list of arbitrary operations to execute.

    – Acorn
    6 hours ago











  • @Ayxan I have quickly posted it here: stackoverflow.com/q/55524710/9305398

    – Acorn
    6 hours ago











  • Even though this is specific to MSVC, g++ gives the following similar error when trying to compile: error: cannot delete expression of type 'int (*)()' .. seems odd that MS would have missed something that simple in their docs :/

    – txtechhelp
    5 hours ago





















  • In what context one may need to dynamically allocate pointers to functions?

    – Ayxan
    6 hours ago











  • @Ayxan That would be another question, but for instance you may want to have a list of arbitrary operations to execute.

    – Acorn
    6 hours ago











  • @Ayxan I have quickly posted it here: stackoverflow.com/q/55524710/9305398

    – Acorn
    6 hours ago











  • Even though this is specific to MSVC, g++ gives the following similar error when trying to compile: error: cannot delete expression of type 'int (*)()' .. seems odd that MS would have missed something that simple in their docs :/

    – txtechhelp
    5 hours ago



















In what context one may need to dynamically allocate pointers to functions?

– Ayxan
6 hours ago





In what context one may need to dynamically allocate pointers to functions?

– Ayxan
6 hours ago













@Ayxan That would be another question, but for instance you may want to have a list of arbitrary operations to execute.

– Acorn
6 hours ago





@Ayxan That would be another question, but for instance you may want to have a list of arbitrary operations to execute.

– Acorn
6 hours ago













@Ayxan I have quickly posted it here: stackoverflow.com/q/55524710/9305398

– Acorn
6 hours ago





@Ayxan I have quickly posted it here: stackoverflow.com/q/55524710/9305398

– Acorn
6 hours ago













Even though this is specific to MSVC, g++ gives the following similar error when trying to compile: error: cannot delete expression of type 'int (*)()' .. seems odd that MS would have missed something that simple in their docs :/

– txtechhelp
5 hours ago







Even though this is specific to MSVC, g++ gives the following similar error when trying to compile: error: cannot delete expression of type 'int (*)()' .. seems odd that MS would have missed something that simple in their docs :/

– txtechhelp
5 hours ago















-4















  1. This code specifically has a different issue as it tries to delete an inner element of an array so it will not compile. It would compile if you wrote delete p and not delete *p.

  2. You can use simple delete on an object allocated by new if It is an array of primitive types. Bad practice, ugly, yes. But not a mistake.

  3. The difference between delete and delete is that the former also calls destructors. For primitive types, however, it will call simple delete to free the memory internally anyway.

  4. Again, even if it works, you should avoid mixing operator types.






share|improve this answer
























  • delete calls destructors...

    – Acorn
    6 hours ago











  • Mixing operators is undefined behavior.

    – Ayxan
    6 hours ago
















-4















  1. This code specifically has a different issue as it tries to delete an inner element of an array so it will not compile. It would compile if you wrote delete p and not delete *p.

  2. You can use simple delete on an object allocated by new if It is an array of primitive types. Bad practice, ugly, yes. But not a mistake.

  3. The difference between delete and delete is that the former also calls destructors. For primitive types, however, it will call simple delete to free the memory internally anyway.

  4. Again, even if it works, you should avoid mixing operator types.






share|improve this answer
























  • delete calls destructors...

    – Acorn
    6 hours ago











  • Mixing operators is undefined behavior.

    – Ayxan
    6 hours ago














-4












-4








-4








  1. This code specifically has a different issue as it tries to delete an inner element of an array so it will not compile. It would compile if you wrote delete p and not delete *p.

  2. You can use simple delete on an object allocated by new if It is an array of primitive types. Bad practice, ugly, yes. But not a mistake.

  3. The difference between delete and delete is that the former also calls destructors. For primitive types, however, it will call simple delete to free the memory internally anyway.

  4. Again, even if it works, you should avoid mixing operator types.






share|improve this answer














  1. This code specifically has a different issue as it tries to delete an inner element of an array so it will not compile. It would compile if you wrote delete p and not delete *p.

  2. You can use simple delete on an object allocated by new if It is an array of primitive types. Bad practice, ugly, yes. But not a mistake.

  3. The difference between delete and delete is that the former also calls destructors. For primitive types, however, it will call simple delete to free the memory internally anyway.

  4. Again, even if it works, you should avoid mixing operator types.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 6 hours ago









Yuri NudelmanYuri Nudelman

1,4061614




1,4061614













  • delete calls destructors...

    – Acorn
    6 hours ago











  • Mixing operators is undefined behavior.

    – Ayxan
    6 hours ago



















  • delete calls destructors...

    – Acorn
    6 hours ago











  • Mixing operators is undefined behavior.

    – Ayxan
    6 hours ago

















delete calls destructors...

– Acorn
6 hours ago





delete calls destructors...

– Acorn
6 hours ago













Mixing operators is undefined behavior.

– Ayxan
6 hours ago





Mixing operators is undefined behavior.

– Ayxan
6 hours ago


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55524140%2fis-delete-p-an-alternative-to-delete-p%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

Reichsarbeitsdienst

Image
Hausflagge des RAD mit Symbol Staatssekretär Konstantin Hierl schreitet auf dem Tempelhofer Feld die Front des RAD ab. Maifeier Berlin, 1. Mai 1934 RAD beim Straßenbau, 1936 RAD-Parade: „Der große Aufmarsch der 38.000 Arbeits­dienst­männer vor dem Führer auf dem Zeppelin­feld“, „Reichs­partei­tag der Arbeit“. Männer des RAD mit ge­schulter­tem Spaten vor Hitler im Auto, 6.–13. Sep. 1937 Reichsparteitag Nürnberg, Arbeits­dienst-Zeltlager mit Arbeitsmaiden, August 1939 Paramilitärischer Aufmarsch des Ar­beits­dienstes, ca. 1940 Vormaliges RAD-Lager (4/224), Ober­mill­statt, um 1940 erbaut als Quartier für junge, zum Arbeits­dienst eingezogene Frau­en, auch Bund Deutscher Mädel (BDM), die bei den Ober­mill­stätter Bauern ein­gesetzt waren, 1950 Der Reichsarbeitsdienst ( RAD ) war eine Organisation im nationalsozialistischen Deutschen Reich. Das Gesetz für den Reichsarbeitsdienst wurde am 26. Juni 1935 erlassen. § 1 (2) lautete: „Alle jungen Deutschen beider
Read more

Statuo de Libereco

Image
Koordinatoj: 40°41′21″N 74°02′40″W   /   40.68917°N , 74.04444°U  / 40.68917; -74.04444  ( Statuo de Libereco ) Statuo de Libereco angle: Statue of Liberty statuo Statuo de Libereco de antaŭe Oficiala nomo: Liberty Enlightening the World Lando  Usono Ŝtato Novjorkio Regiono Novjorko Insulo Insulo de Libereco Situo Statuo de Libereco  - koordinatoj 40°41′21″N 74°02′40″W   /   40.68917°N , 74.04444°U  / 40.68917; -74.04444  ( Statuo de Libereco ) Alteco de statuo 46 m  - alteco kun soklo 93 m Pezo 205 000 kg (451 948 lb) Materialoj bronzo, ŝtalo Proponinto Gustave Eiffel  - skulptisto Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi  - proponinto de soklo Richard Morris Hunt  - kapo laŭ modelo de Isabella Eugenie Boyer Transdonita 4-an de julio 1886 Por publiko alirebla por publiko Horzono OT (UTC-5)  - somera tempo OT (UTC-4) Loko
Read more

Tanganjiko

Image
Lago Tanganjiko Situo centra Afriko Ĉefaj fontoj Kalambo, Lufuko, Malagarasi kaj Ruzizi Ĉefaj elfluoj Lukugo Setlejoj Bujumbura, Kalemie Datenoj Koordinatoj 6°  S , 30°  O -6.3827777777778 29.615 782 Koordinatoj: 6°  S , 30°  O DEC Supermara alteco 782 m Surfaca areo 32 893 km² f5 Maksimuma longo 673 km f6 Maksimuma larĝo 72 km f7 Akva volumeno 18.900 km³ dep1 f8 Maksimuma profundo 1470 m f10 Averaĝa profundo 570 m f11 v   •   d   •   r Mapo de la lago Tanganjiko estas lago en orienta Afriko, inter Burundo, Kongo Kinŝasa, Tanzanio kaj Zambio. Ĝi apartenas al la Granda Rifto kaj estas unu el la Afrikaj Grandaj Lagoj. Tanzanio (46%) kaj DRK (40%) havas la majoritaton de la lago. Ĝi havas longon de 673 km, areon de ĉ. 32.900 km² kaj maksimuman profundon taksatan je 1470 metroj; pro tiu ĉi granda profundo ankaŭ ĝia volumeno estas sufiĉe granda, 18.900 km³. Oni konsi
Read more