Yes, another realloc
vs. std::vector
question. I know what you\'re going to say, and I agree, forget manual memory allocation, and just use a
You should avoid realloc
completely anyway, because you can't move around C++ objects like that.
buf = new unsigned char[sizeof(T) * capacity]
to create a new bufferunsigned char *
to T *
and use these T
-pointers from now onnew
", as in new (&buf[i]) T(original_copy)
std::uninitialized_copy
(not std::copy
), then destroy the elements in the old one using buf[i].~T()
and deallocate the old buffer using delete [] buf
.All of this is assuming you don't have to worry about exception-safety, which is probably OK for the assignment.
Just be aware that in real-world code you'd have to guarantee exception safety and it's a lot more tedious than this.
The problem with realloc
is that is may move the existing data to a different range of contiguous addresses. Should it need to do so, given it's a C function the data is copied without any nod to C++ object lifetime:
This can cause fatal consequences - for example, when the objects being moved contain pointers/references that remain pointing at addresses in the memory area being vacated.
Sadly, normal malloc
implementations don't allow a callback hook allowing you to replace the memory-content-copying code with your own C++-safe implementation. If you're determined you could try to find a more flexible "malloc" library, but it's unlikely to be worth the hassle and risk.
Consequently, in the general case you should use new
to change your capacity, copy/move each object, and delete
the originals afterwards.
If you're certain your data is simple enough that a memcpy
-style relocation won't cause adverse consequences, then you can use realloc
(at your own risk).