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 7691747
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 31, 20262026-05-31T20:41:42+00:00 2026-05-31T20:41:42+00:00

When I use new [] to apply memory. In the end, I use delete

  • 0

When I use new [] to apply memory. In the end, I use delete to free memory (not delete[]). Will this cause memory leak?

Two types:

  1. Builtin types, like int, char, double …
    I am not sure.
  2. class types.

I think may free leak. because the destruct function.

Many people and some books tell me, new[] -> delete[] ; new -> delete.

I want to know why.
so I check vs2010 source code, it must be use memory pool mechanism. It is long and complex . I can’t continue read.

How are delete and delete[] implemented?

  • 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
    2026-05-31T20:41:42+00:00Added an answer on May 31, 2026 at 8:41 pm

    When I use new [] to apply memory. In end , I use delete to free memeory(not delete[]).Must be memory leak ?

    If you use new[], and then delete (not delete[]), then according to the langauge specification, it invokes undefined-behavior which means anything could happen. It may cause memory leak or may not. No such guarantee is given by the language, nor by the compiler.

    Many people and some books tell me, new[]->delete[]; new->delete . I want to know why ?

    Short answer : because the specification says so.

    Long answer: the functions which implementnew and new[] are implemented differently: new assumes memory of one item is to be allocated, while new[] assumes memory of n item is to be allocated where n is passed to the function as argument. So to undo the process (i.e to deallocate the memory), there should be two functions as well : delete and delete[] which are implemented differently, each makes some assumption about the memory allocated by their counterparts. For example, delete simply assumes memory allocated for one item is to be deallocated; on the other hand delete[] needs to know the number of items for which memory is to be deallocated, so it assumes that new[] stores the number of items somewhere in the allocated memory, most commonly in the begginning of the allocated memory, and so delete[] first reads that portion of memory which stores the number of items, and then deallocates the memory, accordingly.

    Note that new and new[] each calls the default constructor to construct the object(s) in the allocated memory, and delete and delete[] calls the destructor to destruct the object before deallocating the memory.

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

Sidebar

Related Questions

Possible Duplicate: Use of .apply() with 'new' operator. Is this possible? I have 5
I know that I am supposed to use delete [] after I use new
Will .Net 4.0 use a new version of the CLR (v2.1, 3.0) or will
Im building an app that will use a Core Data model. I pretty new
When getting SQL DateTime Resharper suggests to use new DateTime() when value is DBNull.Value
I have the following snippet of code that's generating the Use new keyword if
I want to use the new report builder 2.0, rather than the old VS2005
If I use the new keyword in my library (which is built differently than
I want to use the new combobox control of the Ajax control Toolkit. But
I'd like to use the new CMFCListCtrl features with my CListView class (and, of

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.