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
    7 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
    7 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
    7 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
    7 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
    7 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
7 hours ago





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

– Ayxan
7 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

What other Star Trek series did the main TNG cast show up in?

Image
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0; } 4 I'm referring to Picard, Riker, Data, Worf, Geordi, Dr. Crusher, Wesley Crusher, Chief O'Brien and family, Deanna Troi, Guinan. I know Picard and Worf show up on DS9, though I haven't seen it myself. I'm curious what happened to the characters after that last episode of TNG? star-trek star-trek-tng share | improve this question edited 10 hours ago Ham Sandwich 6,051 2 25 75 ...
Read more

Berlina muro

Image
La berlina muro ĉe Bethaniendamm, 1986 La berlina muro aŭ simple la muro [1] , nomita ankaŭ "kontraŭfaŝisma remparo" en propaganda lingvo de la iama Germana Demokratia Respubliko, estis parto de la interngermana limo, kiu dividis de la 13-a de aŭgusto 1961 ĝis la 9-a de novembro 1989 okcidentan Berlinon de la orienta parto de la urbo kaj de la ĉirkaŭa tereno de la GDR. Ĝi estis unu el la plej famaj simboloj de la malvarma milito kaj de la disdivido de Germanio. Pli ol simpla muro, la berlina muro estis fakte tuta defendokonstruaĵo kun du muroj, ena malplena strio, rondirvojo, gardturoj kaj alarmsistemoj. Dum la provo transiri la severe garditan limon al okcidenta Berlino multaj homoj estis mortigitaj. La preciza nombro de viktimoj estas pridisputita kaj ne certa; la nombroj anoncataj varias inter 86 kaj 238 mortintoj. La malplifortiĝo de Sovetunio kaj la politiko de liberigo gvidita de Miĥail Gorbaĉov ebligis al la orientgermanoj faligi la 9-an de novembro 1989 l...
Read more

Berlina aerponto

Image
Flugkoridoroj dum la blokado de Berlino La Berlina aerponto estas la provizigo de okcidenta Berlino per aviadiloj fare de la aliancanoj inter la 23-a de junio 1948 kaj la 12-a de majo 1949 dum la blokado de Berlino fare de la sovetia armeo. Enhavo 1 Historio 1.1 La aerkoridoroj 1.2 Unuaj flugoj 1.3 Plibonigo de la aerponto 1.4 Fino de la aerponto 1.5 Rozinbombiloj 1.6 Bilanco 2 Flughavenoj 2.1 Berlino 2.2 Okcidenta Germanio 3 Aviadiloj de la berlina aerponto 4 15-a datreveno de la aerponto 5 Bibliografio 6 Referencoj 7 Eksteraj ligiloj Historio | General Lucius D. Clay, militguberniestro de la usona okupadzono Jam antaŭ la berlina aerponto estiĝis la malgranda aerponto . La estro de la sovetia militadministracio en Germanio, Vasili Daniloviĉ Sokolovski, ordonis la 1-an de aprilo 1948, kiel reago al la konferenco de Londono inter britoj, francoj kaj reprezentantoj de Benelukso pri aligo de Germa...
Read more