Is delete *p an alternative to delete [] p?In what context one may need to dynamically allocate pointers to...

Has there ever been an airliner design involving reducing generator load by installing solar panels?

Why "Having chlorophyll without photosynthesis is actually very dangerous" and "like living with a bomb"?

How to show the equivalence between the regularized regression and their constraint formulas using KKT

What is the intuition behind short exact sequences of groups; in particular, what is the intuition behind group extensions?

Should I tell management that I intend to leave due to bad software development practices?

Why is it a bad idea to hire a hitman to eliminate most corrupt politicians?

In Romance of the Three Kingdoms why do people still use bamboo sticks when papers are already invented?

Is it canonical bit space?

Why doesn't H₄O²⁺ exist?

How can saying a song's name be a copyright violation?

Is it possible to create light that imparts a greater proportion of its energy as momentum rather than heat?

Why are electrically insulating heatsinks so rare? Is it just cost?

UK: Is there precedent for the governments e-petition site changing the direction of a government decision?

Can one be a co-translator of a book, if he does not know the language that the book is translated into?

How can I tell someone that I want to be his or her friend?

Theorems that impeded progress

How can I prevent hyper evolved versions of regular creatures from wiping out their cousins?

Is Lorentz symmetry broken if SUSY is broken?

Is there a hemisphere-neutral way of specifying a season?

How can I make my BBEG immortal short of making them a Lich or Vampire?

Why is Collection not simply treated as Collection<?>

Does a druid starting with a bow start with no arrows?

intersection of two sorted vectors in C++

Stopping power of mountain vs road bike



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


In what context one may need to dynamically allocate pointers to functions?What are the differences between a pointer variable and a reference variable in C++?PHP: Delete an element from an arrayDeleting array elements in JavaScript - delete vs spliceWhy is “using namespace std” considered bad practice?What is the “-->” operator in C++?What is the copy-and-swap idiom?Why are elementwise additions much faster in separate loops than in a combined loop?Why is reading lines from stdin much slower in C++ than Python?Why is it faster to process a sorted array than an unsorted array?Why should I use a pointer rather than the object itself?






.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?










share|improve this question




















  • 4





    delete *p differs from delete [] p.

    – Jarod42
    5 hours ago











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

    – Cruz Jean
    5 hours ago






  • 1





    typedef would make thing clearer.

    – Jarod42
    5 hours ago













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

    – Jarod42
    5 hours ago











  • delete[] what was new[]ed 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
    4 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?










share|improve this question




















  • 4





    delete *p differs from delete [] p.

    – Jarod42
    5 hours ago











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

    – Cruz Jean
    5 hours ago






  • 1





    typedef would make thing clearer.

    – Jarod42
    5 hours ago













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

    – Jarod42
    5 hours ago











  • delete[] what was new[]ed 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
    4 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?










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






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 5 hours ago









Guillaume Racicot

16.1k53871




16.1k53871










asked 5 hours ago









xiaokaoyxiaokaoy

7152719




7152719








  • 4





    delete *p differs from delete [] p.

    – Jarod42
    5 hours ago











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

    – Cruz Jean
    5 hours ago






  • 1





    typedef would make thing clearer.

    – Jarod42
    5 hours ago













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

    – Jarod42
    5 hours ago











  • delete[] what was new[]ed 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
    4 hours ago
















  • 4





    delete *p differs from delete [] p.

    – Jarod42
    5 hours ago











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

    – Cruz Jean
    5 hours ago






  • 1





    typedef would make thing clearer.

    – Jarod42
    5 hours ago













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

    – Jarod42
    5 hours ago











  • delete[] what was new[]ed 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
    4 hours ago










4




4





delete *p differs from delete [] p.

– Jarod42
5 hours ago





delete *p differs from delete [] p.

– Jarod42
5 hours ago













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

– Cruz Jean
5 hours ago





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

– Cruz Jean
5 hours ago




1




1





typedef would make thing clearer.

– Jarod42
5 hours ago







typedef would make thing clearer.

– Jarod42
5 hours ago















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

– Jarod42
5 hours ago





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

– Jarod42
5 hours ago













delete[] what was new[]ed 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
4 hours ago







delete[] what was new[]ed 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
4 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
    4 hours ago











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

    – Acorn
    4 hours ago











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

    – Acorn
    4 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
    3 hours ago





















-3















  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
    4 hours ago











  • Mixing operators is undefined behavior.

    – Ayxan
    4 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
    4 hours ago











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

    – Acorn
    4 hours ago











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

    – Acorn
    4 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
    3 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
    4 hours ago











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

    – Acorn
    4 hours ago











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

    – Acorn
    4 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
    3 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 4 hours ago

























answered 5 hours ago









AcornAcorn

6,20111341




6,20111341













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

    – Ayxan
    4 hours ago











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

    – Acorn
    4 hours ago











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

    – Acorn
    4 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
    3 hours ago





















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

    – Ayxan
    4 hours ago











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

    – Acorn
    4 hours ago











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

    – Acorn
    4 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
    3 hours ago



















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

– Ayxan
4 hours ago





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

– Ayxan
4 hours ago













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

– Acorn
4 hours ago





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

– Acorn
4 hours ago













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

– Acorn
4 hours ago





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

– Acorn
4 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
3 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
3 hours ago















-3















  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
    4 hours ago











  • Mixing operators is undefined behavior.

    – Ayxan
    4 hours ago
















-3















  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
    4 hours ago











  • Mixing operators is undefined behavior.

    – Ayxan
    4 hours ago














-3












-3








-3








  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 4 hours ago









Yuri NudelmanYuri Nudelman

1,4081614




1,4081614













  • delete [] calls destructors...

    – Acorn
    4 hours ago











  • Mixing operators is undefined behavior.

    – Ayxan
    4 hours ago



















  • delete [] calls destructors...

    – Acorn
    4 hours ago











  • Mixing operators is undefined behavior.

    – Ayxan
    4 hours ago

















delete [] calls destructors...

– Acorn
4 hours ago





delete [] calls destructors...

– Acorn
4 hours ago













Mixing operators is undefined behavior.

– Ayxan
4 hours ago





Mixing operators is undefined behavior.

– Ayxan
4 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

Anexo:Material bélico de la Fuerza Aérea de Chile Índice Aeronaves Defensa...

Always On Availability groups resolving state after failover - Remote harden of transaction...

update json value to null Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara ...