'new' operator primary types

[George Exarchakos]

Hi there,

this is, I guess, very easy question but I cannot find a specific well
documented answer.

When I use:
int *x = new int(8);

it obviously allocates memory for a new int. But do I have to
explicitly deallocate (delete) it as with any object dynamically
created with 'new'?

Many thanks,
-- George

 

[IR]

When I use:
int *x = new int(8);

it obviously allocates memory for a new int. But do I have to
explicitly deallocate (delete) it as with any object dynamically
created with 'new'?

Yes.



Cheers,

 

[Victor Bazarov]

this is, I guess, very easy question but I cannot find a specific well
documented answer.

When I use:
int *x = new int(8);

it obviously allocates memory for a new int. But do I have to
explicitly deallocate (delete) it as with any object dynamically
created with 'new'?

Nah... If you don't care about memory leaks, that is.

Objects created by means of 'new' operator [in free store] live until
they are removed from free store by means of 'delete' operator. So,
if you don't delete your 'int', it will keep on living, just like any
other object. There is no difference between a built-in type and any
of UDTs you can think of.

V

 

[peter koch]

Hi there,

this is, I guess, very easy question but I cannot find a specific well
documented answer.

When I use:
int *x = new int(8);

it obviously allocates memory for a new int.

It allocates memory and initialises the int. The initialisation part
is quite important!

But do I have to
explicitly deallocate (delete) it as with any object dynamically
created with 'new'?

You do unless you want a memory leak or use a garbage collector.

/Peter

 

[George Exarchakos]

It allocates memory and initialises the int. The initialisation part
is quite important!> But do I have to

You do unless you want a memory leak or use a garbage collector.

/Peter

Many thanks to all! That seems to be the correct thing to do and I
have a confirmation from all of you so it is 120% sure.

Thanks,
-- George