What's the advantage of using std::allocator instead of new in C++?

Question

I've just read about std::allocator. In my opinion, it is more complicated to use it instead of using new and delete.

With allocator we must explicitly allocate heap memory, construct it, destroy it, and then finally deallocate the memory. So why was it created?

In which cases can it be used and when should it be used instead of new and delete?

Backwoods

@EvanCarslake And how are new and delete not allocation/deallocating memory? The real difference is completely unrelated: Execution of constructors/destructors. – Apostrophe

You may find stackoverflow - memory management & std::allocator interesting as well as stackoverflow - Why not to inherit from std::allocator – Torchbearer

possible duplicate of C++ STL allocator vs operator new – Amylopectin

Answer 1

std::allocator is the default memory allocator for the standard library containers, and you can substitute your own allocators. This allows you to control how the standard containers allocate memory. But I don't think that your question is about std::allocator specifically, but rather the strategy of allocating memory, then constucting objects in that memory, rather than using new T[N], for example.

And the reason for that is that new T[N] doesn't allow you control over what constructors are called. And it forces you to construct all your objects at the same time. This is terrible for the purposes of, for example, std::vector where you only want to allocate occasionally.

With a raw memory allocator, you can allocate a certain amount of memory, which determines your capacity. Then, as the user adds items to the vector (using the constructor of their choice), you can construct objects in place in this memory.

Then when you run out of memory, you allocate more, typically twice as much. If std::vector used new T[N], it would have to reallocate every time you wanted to add or remove an element, which would be terrible for performance. You would also be forced to use the default constructor for all the objects, which puts an unnecessary restriction on the types of objects std::vector can hold.

Retinoscopy

I think s/allocate/construct in "Where you only want to allocate occasionally". – Hawaii

@Nawaz: Well, it's both I guess. But I really did mean allocate there. After all, you could implement vector (very stupidly) by using new T[size]. Then every time you add an element, you would reallocate with new T[++size]. And that's what the question was about (I think): using new T[N] vs separating allocation from construction. – Retinoscopy

If you read "And it forces you to construct all your objects at the same time. This is terrible .... ", followed by "Where you only want to allocate occasionally.". The second sentence doesn't go well with the reasoning of the previous sentence. At least, that is what I felt (and still feel). – Hawaii

Answer 2

In my opinion, it is more complicated to use it instead of using new and delete.

Yes, but it is not meant to replace new and delete, it serves a different purpose.

With allocator we must explicitly allocate heap memory, construct it, destroy it, and then finally deallocate the memory.

So why was it created?

Because sometimes you want to separate allocation and construction into two steps (and similarly to separate destruction and deallocation into two steps). If you don't want to do that, don't use an allocator, use new instead.

In which cases can it be used and when should it be used instead of new and delete?

When you need the behaviour of an allocator, not the behaviour of new and delete, obviously! The typical case is when implementing a container.

Consider the following code:

std::vector<X> v;
v.reserve(4);        // (1)
v.push_back( X{} );  // (2)
v.push_back( X{} );  // (3)
v.clear();           // (4)

Here line (1) must allocate enough memory for four objects, but not construct them yet. Then lines (2) and (3) must construct objects into the allocated memory. Then line (4) must destroy those objects, but not deallocate the memory. Finally, in the vector's destructor, all the memory can be deallocated.

So the vector cannot just use new X() or delete &m_data[1] to create and destroy the objects, it must perform allocation/deallocation separately from construction/destruction. A container's allocator template argument defines the policy that should be used for (de)allocating memory and constructing/destructing objects, allowing the container's use of memory to be customised. The default policy is the std::allocator type.

So you use an allocator when an allocator is required (such as when using a container) and you use std::allocator when you don't want to provide a custom allocator and just want the standard one.

You don't use an allocator as a replacement for new and delete.

Cognizance

Answer 3

Allocators are a very important concept in the STL. Every container is capable to take an allocator as argument. Then allocations will be performed using this allocator, and not the standard one.

This is useful e.g. for allocating objects of the same size in a pool, to improve performance, or might be necessary if there's a special area of memory where your objects need to live.

The steps of allocating and constructing are separate because e.g. for vector (std::vector::reserve) it's important to be able to allocate memory for future use, but not (yet) create objects therein.

As an example you could write an allocator as a class, containing an fixed size array, and use that array to provide memory for some standard container. Then you can have an instance of that class on the stack and thus completely avoid heap allocations for some part of your programm.

See more examples here in this SO post.

[...] when should it be used [...]

When you have specific needs, and most important when writing own generic containers.

Sou

Answer 4

The std::allocator was created to allow developers more control of how memory is allocated. In many embedded systems, memory is constrained and in different types. There may not be a huge amount. Also, memory allocation wants to be minimized to avoid fragmentation issues.

The allocator also allows for allocation from different memory pools. So for example, allocating small sized blocks would be more efficient from a small block memory pool.

Marty

In fact allocators were added to the STL to encapsulate the details of the memory model, e.g. segmented memory systems with "near" and "far" pointers such as early Intel x86 chips, not to allow customisation of how memory is allocated. See sgi.com/tech/stl/drdobbs-interview.html and stlport.org/resources/StepanovUSA.html – Cognizance

Even some relatively-recent systems, such as the Playstation 3, make it necessary to use custom allocators in order to map your data structures to specific regions of memory. Not to mention the cases of wanting to allocate within, say, a mmap() region or IPC buffer or the like. – Sparry

Answer 5

Your instinct is right. In 90% of cases, use new. However, notice in structures like, say, the map data structure. One of its default template arguments is class Alloc = allocator<pair<const Key,T>, which defines how the class creates new instances of things and manages existing instances. In this way, you could theoretically create your own allocator and then use it for existing data structures. Since new and delete are functions and not classes, it is necessary to have the std::allocator to represent them and make them valid template arguments.

Phipps

Answer 6

new and delete are the direct way to create an object in dynamic memory and initialize it. Allocators are much more though, because they offer complete control over the aforementioned phases.

With allocator we must explicitly allocate heap memory, construct it, destroy it, and then finally deallocate the memory.

Indeed allocators are not supposed to be used for "normal" code where new and delete would equally be fine. Consider a class like std::map, often implemented as a tree: do you need to deallocate the whole leaf whenever an object held is deleted? Allocators allow you do destruct that object, but keep the memory so that you don't have to require it again.

Further, you may specialize an allocator for a certain type if you know more optimized methods for its control which is not possible for new and delete.

Amylopectin

Answer 7

You are confused. std::allocator calls/uses new and delete. It is simply another level in the C++ memory hierarchy, used to serve the various needs of the C++ standard library, particularly the containers, but other types too. The C++ library containers use the allocator to automatically manage the memory of the contained elements. Without it, things would be more cumbersome and thus more difficult to use. Furthermore an allocator can be used to perform different techniques of memory management, eg stack allocation, linear allocation, heap allocation, pool allocation etc.

C++ memory "hierarchy"

_________________
|Applications   |
|_______________|
      |
______↓_______________________
|C++ library (std::allocator)|
|____________________________|
      |
______↓______________________________________________________________________________
|C++ primitives (new/delete, new[]/delete[], ::operator new()/::operator delete())  |
|___________________________________________________________________________________|
      |
______↓______
|malloc/free|
|___________|
      |
______↓______________
|OS APIs, syscalls  |
|___________________|

This is the normal flow of calls, but an application can instead call malloc/free, or new/delete or even the OS APIs directly. You see it's ALL an abstraction. The level above abstracts the more difficult nature of the one and wraps it in an easier to use package.

Pollinosis

Answer 8

The reason for this STL member is to give the developer more control over memory. What I mean by this is, for instance, the new operator is not really just one operation per se. At its most basic, it performs a reservation of memory AND then fills that space with the object.

Although I cannot on top of my head come up with a specific, real-world case scenario, you should use std::allocator and such when, perhaps, the destruction of a given object might impact other objects in memory.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, you created some kind of vector which each element is double-linked to some other object in memory and you want, at the time of deletion of said vector, the objects linked to remove the reference back to it.

Alys