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 7670413
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 31, 20262026-05-31T15:49:01+00:00 2026-05-31T15:49:01+00:00

Operator delete checks itself if the pointer is nullptr. Is there any performance overhead

  • 0

Operator delete checks itself if the pointer is nullptr. Is there any performance overhead when calling delete on a nullptr without checking it yourself?

delete ptr;

or

if (ptr != nullptr) delete ptr; 

Which of the above executes faster if ptr is nullptr?

  • 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
    2026-05-31T15:49:02+00:00Added an answer on May 31, 2026 at 3:49 pm

    As usual, it depends on the compiler.

    I use MSVC, which compiles both these lines to exactly the same code.

    The rules say that if the pointer is null, the delete has no effect. So if you don’t check that, the compiler has to anyway.

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

Sidebar

Related Questions

Possible Duplicate: Deleting a pointer to const (T const*) void operator delete (void*); ...
Is there a difference between: operator delete(some_pointer); and delete some_pointer; and if so what
Both free(NULL) and ::operator delete(NULL) are allowed. Does the allocator concept (e.g. std::allocator also
From the C++ standard (ISO/IEC 14882:2003(E)), §12.5.4, about overloading operator delete : If a
I am trying to replace the global operator new and delete. In Linux this
I would like to replace the global operator new() and operator delete() (along with
gdb backtrace: #0 0x0040cea9 in free () from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6 #1 0x0033c741 in operator delete(void*)
Visual C++ has C4150 warning for cases when delete is applied to a pointer
What is the difference between delete and delete[] operators in C++?
What is the difference between the 'delete' and 'dispose' C++ operators with regards to

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.