I'm quite worry because I wrote a little application and it seems that there is a memory leak if I believe valgrind (What I actually do):
==9321== 251 bytes in 7 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 1 of 1
==9321== at 0x402569A: operator new(unsigned int) (vg_replace_malloc.c:255)
==9321== by 0x40D3D05: std::string::_Rep::_S_create(unsigned int, unsigned int, std::allocator<char> const&) (in /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.13)
==9321== by 0x40D4977: std::string::_Rep::_M_clone(std::allocator<char> const&, unsigned int) (in /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.13)
==9321== by 0x40D57AC: std::string::reserve(unsigned int) (in /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.13)
==9321== by 0x40D5EE6: std::string::operator+=(char) (in /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.13)
==9321== by 0x804E113: xl2::TextParser::getNextLfLine() (TextParser.cpp:162)
==9321== by 0x804BFD5: xl2::UsbTree::parseStringInfo(xl2::TextParser&, std::string&, std::string&) (UsbTree.cpp:362)
==9321== by 0x804B881: xl2::UsbTree::parseDevicesFile(std::string) (UsbTree.cpp:204)
==9321== by 0x804B34E: xl2::UsbTree::updateTree() (UsbTree.cpp:70)
==9321== by 0x804E2E4: scan(std::string) (testUsbTree.cpp:75)
==9321== by 0x804E6CC: executeCommand(std::string) (testUsbTree.cpp:132)
==9321== by 0x804E8F6: hushLoop() (testUsbTree.cpp:153)
Here is the function in question :
/**
* Returns the next line separated by UNIX style LF
* @return The next line separated by UNIX style LF
*/
std::string TextParser::getNextLfLine()
{
std::string line; // The builded line
while(this->hasMoreToken())
{
line += this->m_pText[this->m_iTokenLocation++];
// Check if we have just seen a CR/LF character
if(this->m_pText[this->m_iTokenLocation - 1] == '\n')
return line;
}
return line;
}
The programm terminates correctly by leaving the main funciton (no call to exit()).
I just don't understand why there is a memory leak. As my string is copied in the stack and the original string is supposed to be cleaned when the function is left, right? Or the error could be higher? At top level I also assign the returned value to a local variable that is then put as field into an object (by copy) ...
So I was wondering if the leak comes from the standard library or valgrind what would be really surprising!
Any pointers to not leaked memory is strongly appreciated :-p!
std::string class in C++ C++ has in its definition a way to represent a sequence of characters as an object of the class. This class is called std:: string. String class stores the characters as a sequence of bytes with the functionality of allowing access to the single-byte character.
While std::string has the size of 24 bytes, it allows strings up to 22 bytes(!!) with no allocation.
One of the most common mistakes leading to memory leaks is applying the wrong delete operator. The delete operator should be used to free a single allocated class or data value, whereas the delete [] operator should be used to free an array of data values.
On Windows platform, in C++, with std::string, string size less than around 14 char or so (known as small string) is stored in stack with almost no overhead, whereas string size above is stored in heap with overhead.
To quote Valgrind FAQ
With GCC 2.91, 2.95, 3.0 and 3.1, compile all source using the STL with -D__USE_MALLOC. Beware! This was removed from GCC starting with version 3.3.
With GCC 3.2.2 and later, you should export the environment variable GLIBCPP_FORCE_NEW before running your program.
With GCC 3.4 and later, that variable has changed name to GLIBCXX_FORCE_NEW.
Also discussed in GCC FAQ
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With