new char vs new char[size]

I think people mix up this: char *buf = new char;
with this: char *buf = new char[256];
They mix up number of elements with number of bytes.

Code:

---

char *buf = new char[256];

---

this means allocating 256 element.
file.append(buf); and here you are using only one element of 256 and you can assign as many byte as you like to it.

Whereas here i can assign as many characters as i want with only one element,
this code's working:

Code:

---

#include <iostream>
using namespace std;

int  main()
{
  char *buf2 = new char;
  strcpy(buf2, "hellooooooooooooooooooooooo!");
  cout  << buf2 <<"\n";
  delete buf2;

  return  0;
}

---

Do i see it right or am i missing the point?
I see all the time this.

It might be "working" today, but your 2nd code is absolutely broken.

The lack of an immediate crash is not an indication that all is well.

Hmm, thanks Salem!

I wonder whats the use of 'char *buf2 = new char;' then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ducky

Hmm, thanks Salem!

I wonder whats the use of 'char *buf2 = new char;' then.

---

The user of that would be to create a pointer to a single new char... Although I can't really think of any reason you'd want to do that in practice though. But there are bound to be some.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ducky

Hmm, thanks Salem!

I wonder whats the use of 'char *buf2 = new char;' then.

---

To dynamically allocate a single char.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cpjust

To dynamically allocate a single char.

---

Ok, im not gonna ask why would we wanna do that. :)

Thanks to both of you, though!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ducky

I think people mix up this: char *buf = new char;
with this: char *buf = new char[256];
They mix up number of elements with number of bytes.

Code:

---

char *buf = new char[256];

---

this means allocating 256 element.
file.append(buf); and here you are using only one element of 256 and you can assign as many byte as you like to it.

---

When working with pointers or arrays of char, the elements are characters (which I assume you're calling "bytes") by definition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ducky

Whereas here i can assign as many characters as i want with only one element,
this code's working:

---

Salem has already addressed this part - I'll just expand a little. The form of operator delete has to match the form of operator new (i.e. if you allocate using operator new [], it is mandatory to release with operator delete[]). Doing otherwise gives undefined behaviour.

One of the joys of undefined behaviour is that anything is allowed to happen. One of the many possibilities among "anything" is "seems to work". Unfortunately "anything" also means that something else could happen next week following a change of compilers, libraries, input conditions, or phase of the moon.

Hehe, thanks Grumpy!

I'm actually rather curious if anybody can think of a situation one would actually want to use "new char". I can't think of one, in any case I can think of you can simply use a char on the stack or as return value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EVOEx

I'm actually rather curious if anybody can think of a situation one would actually want to use "new char". I can't think of one, in any case I can think of you can simply use a char on the stack or as return value.

---

The usual reasons to have a dynamically allocated single object (e.g., something polymorphism related, extending the lifetime of an expensive to copy object beyond a function's scope) do not apply, but it would be an unnecessary exception to not allow new char. It may also be the case where a function template may have the expression new T for a template parameter T, and it could be the case that the corresponding template argument is a char.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by laserlight

It may also be the case where a function template may have the expression new T for a template parameter T, and it could be the case that the corresponding template argument is a char.

---

Good point. I understand that it would be crazy not to allow "new char", I was just curious about if it would ever be used. Your template function idea I didn't think about and it was a perfect solution to my question ;). But it was just out of curiousity Thanks.