From: sparhawk AT eunet DOT at (Gerhard Gruber)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: "delete" and "delete []" operators
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 14:36:25 GMT
Organization: Customer of EUnet Austria
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <35a71a7e.2075466@news.Austria.EU.net>
References: <199807092012 DOT QAA25515 AT delorie DOT com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: e200.dynamic.vienna.at.eu.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

Destination: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
From: Gruber Gerhard
Group: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 16:12:12 -0400 (EDT):

>You should use delete [] x, but for obscure reasons.  Here's some
>background.
>
>The difference between delete and delete [] can be best described by
>this example:
>
>	#include <stdio.h>
>	
>	class Foo
>	{
>	public:
>	  ~Foo() { printf("~Foo!\n"); };
>	};
>	
>	int main(void)
>	{
>	  Foo *foo1 = new Foo[5];
>	  Foo *foo2 = new Foo[5];
>	
>	  printf("delete foo1\n");
>	  delete foo1;
>	  printf("delete [] foo2\n");
>	  delete [] foo2;
>	
>	  return 0;
>	}
>
>In both cases, an array of objects is created.  However, only in the
>delete [] case will all the destructors be called.
>
>The obscure part is that some compilers manage this by allocating an
>additional bit of memory to keep track of the number of objects in the
>array, and free this memory in delete [].  If you call delete instead
>of delete[], that memory is never freed and you have a memory leak.

Does this mean that, in your above example, for each object in the array is
the constructor called by new[] and the destructor by delete[]? 

--
Bye,
   Gerhard

email: sparhawk AT eunet DOT at
       g DOT gruber AT sis DOT co DOT at

Spelling corrections are appreciated.