The example given:

    char *buf = new char[s]();

Put into Compiler Explorer:

    https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/QAs9gz

However, doing this is a very strong code smell. At the very least, using `new` and assigning to a raw pointer is a sign that the C++ developer is managing memory manually and is likely to hit a lot of problems including memory leaks or segmentation faults. Also many would forget that this is calling `operator new[]()`, not `operator new()` and might confuse with placement-new `operator new(...)` or `operator new[](...)`. And the developer might also forget that `new` could throw an exception... [0]

The developer should instead be using, at a minimum, a `std::unique_ptr<char[]>` [1]. Or, IMO, a `std::vector<char>` which reminds the developer not only of the pointer but also of the count of bytes which have been allocated (.capacity()) and also of the valid range which has been initialized (.size()).

IMO, if the developer wanted a pointer to a byte array then it's a lot easier to use `malloc()` than trying to remember all the different ways you can get screwed by `operator new`:

    std::unique_ptr<char, std::function<void(char*)>> m{
        (char*)std::malloc(count), std::free
    };

[0]: https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/new

[1]: https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/memory/unique_ptr