Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 6252789
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 24, 20262026-05-24T13:52:11+00:00 2026-05-24T13:52:11+00:00

Can we call delete on the pointer which is allocated with the placement new

  • 0

Can we call delete on the pointer which is allocated with the placement new? If no then why? Please explain in details.

I know that there is no placement delete. But I wonder why just delete opetator can not delete the memory without caring how that memory on which the pointer points is allocated?

delete is doing two things:

  1. Calls destrucor
  2. Frees memory

And I see no reaason for delete not to be able to call either of these two operations on the object which was created by placement new. Any idea about reasons?

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-24T13:52:11+00:00Added an answer on May 24, 2026 at 1:52 pm

    EDIT1: I know that there is no placement delete. But I wonder why just
    delete opetator can not delete the memory without caring how that
    memory on which the pointer points is allocated?

    Because each flavour of memory allocation uses some implementation specific tracking of the memory (usually a header block that precedes the user address) and this make the allocation/deallocation to work only when paired up correctly:

    • new must pair with delete
    • new[] must pair with delete[] (most implementations though forgive mixing the newand new[])
    • malloc and frieds must pair with free
    • CoTaskMemAlloc pairs with CoTaskMemFree
    • alloca pairs with nothing (stack unwinding takes care of it)
    • MyCustomAllocator pairs with MyCustomFree

    Attempting to call the wrong deallocator will result in unpredictable behavior( most likely seg fault now or later). Therefore calling delete on memory allocated by anything else other than new will result in bad things.

    Furthermore the placement new may be called on any address, may not even be an allocated address. It can be called on an address located in the middle of some larger object, it may be called on a memory mapped region, it may be called on a raw virtual committed region, anything goes. delete woul attempt, in all these cases, to do what its implementation tell him to do: subtract the header size, interpret it as a new header, link it back into the heap. Kaboom.

    The one that know how to release the memory of a placement new address is you, since you know exactly how was that memory allocated. delete will only do what it knows, and it may not be the right thing.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

We have some methods that call File.Copy, File.Delete, File.Exists, etc. How can we test
(Yes I know I can call Java code from Scala; but that is pointless;
I know I can call it whatever, but just like there is a convention
I know I can call the GetVersionEx Win32 API function to retrieve the Windows
I noticed that you can call Queue.Synchronize to get a thread-safe queue object, but
I understand that I can call ToString().IndexOf(...), but I don't want to create an
I need a collection in which i can store heap-allocated objects having virtual functions.
We can call destructor explicitly through class pointer, why not constructor? Any idea? #include
I can call the webservie directly to the browser with the following URL and
From this code I can call bmwCars.CopyToDataTable() as I expected. var bmwCars = from

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.