> However, since it may be used elsewhere, a better solution is to replace the default allocator with one that uses malloc and free instead of new and delete.
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?
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?