I want to reset an object. Can I do it in the following way?
anObject->~AnObject();
anObject = new(anObject) AnObject();
// edit: this is not allowed: anObject->AnObject();
This code is obviously a subset of typical life cycle of an object allocated by in placement new:
AnObject* anObject = malloc(sizeof(AnObject));
anObject = new (anObject) AnObject(); // My step 2.
// ...
anObject->~AnObject(); // My step 1.
free(anObject)
// EDIT: The fact I used malloc instead of new doesn't carry any meaning
The only thing that's changed is the order of constructor and destructor calls.
So, why in the following FAQ all the threatening appear?
[11.9] But can I explicitly call a destructor if I've allocated my object with new?
FAQ: You can't, unless the object was allocated with placement new. Objects created by new must be deleted, which does two things (remember them): calls the destructor, then frees the memory.
FQA: Translation: delete is a way to explictly call a destructor, but it also deallocates the memory. You can also call a destructor without deallocating the memory. It's ugly and useless in most cases, but you can do that.
The destructor/constructor call is obviously normal C++ code. Guarantees used in the code directly result from the in placement new guarantees. It is the core of the standard, it's rock solid thing. How can it be called "dirty" and be presented as something unreliable?
Do you think it's possible, that the in-placement and non-in-placement implementation of new are different? I'm thinking about some sick possibility, that the regular new can for example put size of the memory block allocated before the block, which in-placement new obviously would not do (because it doesn't allocate any memory). This could result in a gap for some problems... Is such new() implementation possible?
Don't get sucked in by the FQA troll. As usual he gets the facts wrong.
You can certainly call the destructor directly, for all objects whether they are created with placement new or not. Ugly is in the eye of the beholder, it is indeed rarely needed, but the only hard fact is that both memory allocation and object creation must be balanced.
"Regular" new/delete simplifies this a bit by tying memory allocation and object creation together, and stack allocation simplifies it even further by doing both for you.
However, the following is perfectly legal:
int foo() {
CBar bar;
(&bar)->~CBar();
new (&bar) CBar(42);
}
Both objects are destroyed, and the stack memory is automatically recycled too. yet unlike the FQA claims, the first call of the destructor is not preceded by placement new.