很少考虑使用malloc/free而不是new/delete的情况是，当你使用realloc进行分配和重新分配(简单的pod类型，而不是对象)时，因为在c++中没有类似于realloc的函数(尽管这可以使用更c++的方法来完成)。

如果你有C代码，你想移植到c++，你可能会留下任何malloc()调用。对于任何新的c++代码，我建议使用new。

来自c++ FQA Lite:

[16.4] Why should I use new instead of trustworthy old malloc()? FAQ: new/delete call the constructor/destructor; new is type safe, malloc is not; new can be overridden by a class. FQA: The virtues of new mentioned by the FAQ are not virtues, because constructors, destructors, and operator overloading are garbage (see what happens when you have no garbage collection?), and the type safety issue is really tiny here (normally you have to cast the void* returned by malloc to the right pointer type to assign it to a typed pointer variable, which may be annoying, but far from "unsafe"). Oh, and using trustworthy old malloc makes it possible to use the equally trustworthy & old realloc. Too bad we don't have a shiny new operator renew or something. Still, new is not bad enough to justify a deviation from the common style used throughout a language, even when the language is C++. In particular, classes with non-trivial constructors will misbehave in fatal ways if you simply malloc the objects. So why not use new throughout the code? People rarely overload operator new, so it probably won't get in your way too much. And if they do overload new, you can always ask them to stop.

对不起，我就是忍不住。：）

在下面的场景中，我们不能使用new，因为它调用构造函数。

class  B  {
private:
    B *ptr;
    int x;
public:
    B(int n)  {
        cout<<"B: ctr"<<endl;
        //ptr = new B;  //keep calling ctr, result is segmentation fault
        ptr = (B *)malloc(sizeof(B));
        x = n;
        ptr->x = n + 10;
    }
    ~B()  {
        //delete ptr;
        free(ptr);
        cout<<"B: dtr"<<endl;
    }
};

如果你正在使用c++，尝试使用new/delete而不是malloc/calloc，因为它们是操作符。对于malloc/calloc，需要包含另一个头文件。不要在同一代码中混合使用两种不同的语言。它们的工作在各个方面都是相似的，都是从哈希表的堆段动态分配内存。

简短的回答是:如果没有真正好的理由，不要在c++中使用malloc。malloc在与c++一起使用时有许多缺陷，而new定义是为了克服这些缺陷。

c++代码中新修正的缺陷

malloc is not typesafe in any meaningful way. In C++ you are required to cast the return from void*. This potentially introduces a lot of problems: #include <stdlib.h> struct foo { double d[5]; }; int main() { foo *f1 = malloc(1); // error, no cast foo *f2 = static_cast<foo*>(malloc(sizeof(foo))); foo *f3 = static_cast<foo*>(malloc(1)); // No error, bad } It's worse than that though. If the type in question is POD (plain old data) then you can semi-sensibly use malloc to allocate memory for it, as f2 does in the first example. It's not so obvious though if a type is POD. The fact that it's possible for a given type to change from POD to non-POD with no resulting compiler error and potentially very hard to debug problems is a significant factor. For example if someone (possibly another programmer, during maintenance, much later on were to make a change that caused foo to no longer be POD then no obvious error would appear at compile time as you'd hope, e.g.: struct foo { double d[5]; virtual ~foo() { } }; would make the malloc of f2 also become bad, without any obvious diagnostics. The example here is trivial, but it's possible to accidentally introduce non-PODness much further away (e.g. in a base class, by adding a non-POD member). If you have C++11/boost you can use is_pod to check that this assumption is correct and produce an error if it's not: #include <type_traits> #include <stdlib.h> foo *safe_foo_malloc() { static_assert(std::is_pod<foo>::value, "foo must be POD"); return static_cast<foo*>(malloc(sizeof(foo))); } Although boost is unable to determine if a type is POD without C++11 or some other compiler extensions. malloc returns NULL if allocation fails. new will throw std::bad_alloc. The behaviour of later using a NULL pointer is undefined. An exception has clean semantics when it is thrown and it is thrown from the source of the error. Wrapping malloc with an appropriate test at every call seems tedious and error prone. (You only have to forget once to undo all that good work). An exception can be allowed to propagate to a level where a caller is able to sensibly process it, where as NULL is much harder to pass back meaningfully. We could extend our safe_foo_malloc function to throw an exception or exit the program or call some handler: #include <type_traits> #include <stdlib.h> void my_malloc_failed_handler(); foo *safe_foo_malloc() { static_assert(std::is_pod<foo>::value, "foo must be POD"); foo *mem = static_cast<foo*>(malloc(sizeof(foo))); if (!mem) { my_malloc_failed_handler(); // or throw ... } return mem; } Fundamentally malloc is a C feature and new is a C++ feature. As a result malloc does not play nicely with constructors, it only looks at allocating a chunk of bytes. We could extend our safe_foo_malloc further to use placement new: #include <stdlib.h> #include <new> void my_malloc_failed_handler(); foo *safe_foo_malloc() { void *mem = malloc(sizeof(foo)); if (!mem) { my_malloc_failed_handler(); // or throw ... } return new (mem)foo(); } Our safe_foo_malloc function isn't very generic - ideally we'd want something that can handle any type, not just foo. We can achieve this with templates and variadic templates for non-default constructors: #include <functional> #include <new> #include <stdlib.h> void my_malloc_failed_handler(); template <typename T> struct alloc { template <typename ...Args> static T *safe_malloc(Args&&... args) { void *mem = malloc(sizeof(T)); if (!mem) { my_malloc_failed_handler(); // or throw ... } return new (mem)T(std::forward(args)...); } }; Now though in fixing all the issues we identified so far we've practically reinvented the default new operator. If you're going to use malloc and placement new then you might as well just use new to begin with!