From: Erik Max Francis <max AT alcyone DOT com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: How big can I make my array?
Date: Mon, 08 Jun 1998 18:11:19 -0700
Organization: Alcyone Systems
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <357C8BB7.72AB4B6D@alcyone.com>
References: <MPG DOT fe223cb1cc75732989717 AT news DOT virgin DOT net> <3578C43D DOT F4DDB90 AT cs DOT com> <MPG DOT fe3efebb95c6032989725 AT news DOT virgin DOT net> <357AB3E4 DOT 316B4ED2 AT cs DOT com> <357c0c3a DOT 24494159 AT news DOT Austria DOT EU DOT net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: charmaine.alcyone.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

Gerhard Gruber wrote:

> I heard this a number of times but I don't see any advantage or
> disadvantage.
> When I allocate i.e. a string (like char *x = malloc(n)) I don't see
> the
> reason why I should use new instead of malloc(). Is there a drawback
> to
> malloc()?

If you are using classes with constructors, you will want to use
operator new, since it will automatically call the object's constructor.
You won't want to use malloc in that case.

If you are just allocate blocks of data, you can use either, but you
shouldn't mix-and-match the two allocation methods (i.e., never delete a
block allocated with malloc, and never free a block allocated with new).

The malloc routines still have their use, since you can resize
malloc-allocated blocks in one call with realloc, but can't do an
analogous thing with operator new/delete (unless you do the work
yourself).

-- 
         Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE / mailto:max AT alcyone DOT com
                       Alcyone Systems / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
  San Jose, California, United States / icbm:+37.20.07/-121.53.38
                                     \
           She glanced at her watch / . . . It was 9:23.
                                   / James Clavell