std::auto_ptr<int> ptr(new int);
if not then why not?
The answer was simple if one knows what std::auto_ptr<> is good for, what its deleter is. std::auto_ptr<> uses delete operator to destruct owned pointer (pointing to a dynamic allocation made via new operator). So, it comes down to mixing of constructs like array form of new and simple delete. That is undefined behaviour as per the standards. You can read up more about these operators here - Free New, Delete Malloc
By design, the standard auto_ptr<> smart pointer is not suitable for dynamic array allocations. There can be many alternatives though. Few of those are as listed below:
- Avoid self memory management and instead use std::vector<> / std::deque<> for dynamic arrays.
- Use boost::scoped_array<>/boost::shared_array<>/boost::shared_ptr<> with a custom deleter (delete) passed in.
- Write your own smart pointer : auto_ptr_array<> (same implementation as std::auto_ptr<>) just that it uses array form of delete instead of delete.
For the second point above - you can read more about custom deleters and shared_ptr<> here - Custom deleters with smart pointers
A boost::shared_array<>/boost::shared_ptr<> might not be the right choice if you don't want the reference count overhead of shared ownership which really should not be required when talking about auto_ptr<>s but if that's not an issue to worry about, it should work fine.
Another confusion arose, why doesn't std::auto_ptr<> do a delete instead of delete? Well, again, because it is not intended for array allocations. It would hence not work for singular objects created on the free store. This is because of the way delete might be implemented by the compiler.
There can be many ways in which delete could be implemented. Two of those are explained here - How does delete know how many elements to destroy? It is important for delete to know how many elements to destroy particularly since it is used with non-POD types as well and there, the destructor calls are necessary to be made for each of the to-be-destructed elements of the array.
The first method listed in the C++ FAQ Lite uses an extra allocation to remember the size you ask for at the runtime, if you used delete for single allocations, the compiler might try to interpret the block before the pointer you call it on as being size but since that was not allocated in the first place (new was not used!) - expect anything to happen, a crash or any other form of runtime error (depending upon how that error is translated on a particular system).
For the second, where array length association might not exist, it could cause anything depending upon a number of factors about the compiler implementation. One such possibility is, it could leave the variable uninitialized (yeah, its a bad thing, may not actually be happening, but who knows for sure about all compilers? We are just talking of possibilities here) - in which case the size could be anything - even 2 which goes beyond the buffer you allocated and again can cause any fault to the system/system free store. If the size is initialized to 0, it could leave the memory untouched and hence lost resulting in a leak. Memory leaks can be really dangerous particularly on systems that don't reclaim the leaked blocks by a process.
So, when the standard says, its undefined behaviour, it can result in anything. Worse could happen and thinking about these issues beyond the statement of "undefined behaviour" is rather silly. There can be many such "interesting" stories that one can write up. The key is, use std::auto_ptr<> what it is suited for, use delete/delete what they are suited for. Mixing them is really dangerous.
There is a peculiarity to note though. If you do the allocation for the single element using array form of new - you could use delete for that single element. That is:
int * ptr = new int;
delete ptr; //OK
Well, not really a peculiarity, but yeah, something to take note of.
Forum reference : What's wrong with std::auto_ptr<int> ptr(new int);?