malloc()在C语言中用于动态分配内存 而在c++中，同样的工作由new()完成。 所以你不能混合两种语言的编码习惯。 如果你问calloc和malloc()之间的差异，那就好了

如果你处理的数据不需要构造/销毁，需要重新分配(例如，一个大的整数数组)，那么我相信malloc/free是一个很好的选择，因为它给你realloc，这比new-memcpy-delete快得多(它在我的Linux盒子上，但我猜这可能是平台相关的)。如果你使用的c++对象不是POD并且需要构造/销毁，那么你必须使用new和delete操作符。

无论如何，如果可以利用realloc可以给您的速度提升(如果您正在重新分配大型POD数组，有时是一个显著的提升)，我不明白为什么不应该同时使用这两种方法(前提是您释放了错误的内存并删除了用new分配的对象)。

除非你需要它，否则你应该坚持在c++中使用new/delete。

new和delete操作符可以操作类和结构，而malloc和free只适用于需要强制转换的内存块。

使用new/delete将有助于改进代码，因为您不需要将已分配的内存强制转换为所需的数据结构。

malloc()在C语言中用于动态分配内存 而在c++中，同样的工作由new()完成。 所以你不能混合两种语言的编码习惯。 如果你问calloc和malloc()之间的差异，那就好了

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c++中总是使用new。如果你需要一个无类型的内存块，你可以直接使用operator new:

void *p = operator new(size);
   ...
operator delete(p);