C++ object created with new, destroyed with free(); How bad is this?

I am working on modifying a relatively lar开发者_如何学运维ge C++ program, where unfortunately it is not always clear whether someone before me used C or C++ syntax (this is in the electrical engineering department at a university, and we EEs are always tempted to use C for everything, and unfortunately in this case, people can actually get away with it).

However, if someone creates an object:

Packet* thePacket = new Packet();

Does it matter whether it is destroyed with delete thePacket; or free(thePacket); ?

I realize that delete calls the destructor while free() does not, but Packet does not have a destructor. I am having a terrible time stuck in a memory management swamp here and I'm thinking this may be one of the many problems.

---

Yes it does matter.

For memory obtained using new you must use delete.

For memory obtained using malloc you must use free.

new and malloc may use different data structures internally to keep track of what and where it has allocated memory. So in order to free memory, you have to call that corresponding function that knows about those data structures. It is however generally a bad idea to mix these two types of memory allocation in a piece of code.

---

If you call free(), the destructor doesn't get called.

Also, there's no guarantee that new and free operate on the same heap.

You can also override new and delete to operate specially on a particular class. If you do so, but call free() instead of the custom delete, then you miss whatever special behavior you had written into delete. (But you probably wouldn't be asking this question if you had done that, because you'd know what behaviors you were missing..)

---

Packet has a destructor, even if you haven't explicitly declared one. It has a default destructor. The default destructor probably doesn't actually do much, but you can't count on that being the case. It's up to the compiler what it does.

new and malloc also may have wildly different implementations. For example, delete is always called in a context where it has perfect information about the size of the data structure it's deleting at compile time. free does not have this luxury. It's possible that the allocator that new is using may not store the bytes at the beginning of the memory area stating how many bytes it occupies. This would lead free to do entirely the wrong thing and crash your program when freeing something allocated with new.

Personally, if getting people to do the right thing or fixing the code yourself is completely impossible, I would declare my own global operator new that called malloc so then free would definitely not crash, even though it would still not call the destructor and be generally really ugly.

---

In short, it is as bad as undefined behavior.

This is quiet self explanatory.

C Standard ($7.20.3.2/2) - "The free function causes the space pointed to by ptr to be deallocated, that is, made available for further allocation. If ptr is a null pointer, no action occurs. Otherwise, if the argument does not match a pointer earlier returned by the calloc, malloc, or realloc function, or if the space has been deallocated by a call to free or realloc, the behavior is undefined."

---

You are absolutely right, it is NOT correct. As you said yourself, free won't call the destructor. Even if Packet doesn't have an explicit destructor, it's using an inherited one.

Using free on an object created with new is like destroying only what a shallow-copy would reach. Deep-destroying NEEDS the destructor function.

Also, I'm not sure objects created with new() are on the same memory map as malloc()'d memory. They are not guaranteed to be, I think.

---

if someone creates an object:

Packet* thePacket = new Packet();

Does it matter whether is is destroyed with delete thePacket; or free(thePacket); ?

Yes it does matter. free (thePacket) would invoke Undefined Behaviour but delete thePacket would not and we all know Undefined Behaviour may have disastrous consequences.