C++ noob here, but is libc++'s default allocator (I mean, the default implementation of new and delete) actually doing something different than calling libc's malloc and free under the hood? If so, why?
In order for delete[] to work, C++ must track the allocation size somewhere. This could be co-located with the allocation (at ptr - sizeof(size_t) for example), or it could be in some other structure. Using another structure lowers the odds of it getting trampled if/when something writes to memory beyond an object, but comes with a lookup cost, and code to handle this new structure.
I'm sure proper C++ libraries are doing even more, but you already get the idea, new and delete are not the same as malloc and free.
That is super-interesting, I had never considered this, but you're absolutely right. I am now incredibly curious how the standard library implementations do this. I've heard normal malloc() sometimes colocates data in similar ways, I wonder if C++ then "doubles up" on that metadata. Or maybe the standard library has it's own entirely custom allocator that doesn't use malloc() at all? I can't imagine that's true, because you'd want to be able to swap system allocators with e.g. LD_PRELOAD (especially for Valgrind and stuff). They could also just be tracking it "to the side" in some hash table or something, but that seems bad for performance.
When a destructor doesn't - e.g., new int[] - operator new[] is called upon to allocate N*sizeof(T) bytes. The code stores off no metadata. The result of operator new[] is the array address.
When a destructor does - e.g., new std::string[] - operator new[] is called upon to allocate sizeof(size_t)+N*sizeof(T) bytes. The code stores off the item count in the size_t, adds sizeof(size_t) to the value returned by operator new[], uses that as the address for the array, and calls T() on each item. And delete[] performs the opposite: fishes out the size_t, calls ~T() on each item, subtracts sizeof(size_t) from the array address, and passes that to operator delete[] to free the buffer.
(There are also some additional things to cater for: null checks, alignment, and so on. Just details.)
Note that operator new[] is not given any information about whether a destructor needs to run, or whether there is any metadata being stored off. It just gets called with a byte count. Exercise caution when using placement operator new[], because a preallocated buffer of N*sizeof(T) may not be large enough.
Many implementations do it, only because it is already there and thus it is easy just to reach for them.
Notably I thought the issue would be the throwing of `std::bad_alloc`, but the new version still implements std::allocator, and throws bad_alloc.
And so I assume the issue is that the global `operator new` is concrete (it just takes the size of the allocation), thus you need to link to the C++ runtime just to get that function? In which case you might be able to get the same gains by redefining the global `operator new` and `operator delete`, without touching the allocator.
Alternatively, you might be able to statically link the C++ runtime and have DCE take care of the rest.
The new version uses `FMT_THROW` macro instead of a bare throw. The article says "One obvious problem is exceptions and those can be disabled via FMT_THROW, e.g. by defining it to abort". If you check the `g++` invocation, that's exactly what the author does.