[英]C equivalent of C++ delete[] (char *)
What is the C equivalent of C++ 什么是C ++的C等价物
delete[] (char *) foo->bar;
Edit: I'm converting some C++ code to ANSI C. And it had: 编辑:我正在将一些C ++代码转换为ANSIC。它具有:
typedef struct keyvalue
{
char *key;
void *value;
struct keyvalue *next;
} keyvalue_rec;
// ...
for (
ptr = this->_properties->next, last = this->_properties;
ptr!=NULL;
last = ptr, ptr = ptr->next)
{
delete[] last->key;
delete[] (char *) last->value;
delete last;
}
Would this do it for C ? 这对C有用吗?
free(last->key);
free(last->value);
free(last)
In C, you don't have new
; 在C语言中,您没有new
; you just have malloc()
; 你只有malloc()
; to free memory obtained by a call to malloc()
, free()
is called. 为了释放通过调用malloc()
获得的内存,将调用free()
。
That said, why would you cast a pointer to (char*)
before passing it to delete
? 也就是说,为什么要在将指针传递给(char*)
之前将其转换为delete
? That's almost certainly wrong: the pointer passed to delete
must be of the same type as created with new
(or, if it has class type, then of a base class with a virtual destructor). 几乎可以肯定这是错误的:传递给delete
的指针必须与使用new
创建的指针具有相同的类型(或者,如果具有类类型,则具有虚拟析构函数的基类)。
Just plain 'ol free()
. 只是普通的ol free()
。 C makes no distinction between arrays and individual variables. C在数组和单个变量之间没有区别。
相当于delete
和delete[]
的C语言是free
吗?
与非数组相同。
free(foo->bar)
The equivalent would be: 等效为:
free(foo->bar); free(foo-> bar);
since you were typecasting it to (char *) which means whatever the actual type of 'bar' was there would have been no destructor called as a result of the cast. 因为您将其类型转换为(char *),这意味着无论'bar'的实际类型是什么,都不会因强制转换而调用析构函数。
声明:本站的技术帖子网页,遵循CC BY-SA 4.0协议,如果您需要转载,请注明本站网址或者原文地址。任何问题请咨询:yoyou2525@163.com.