问题描述
此问题不是是许多其他问题的重复，因为我愿意使用G_DEBUG=gc-friendly和G_SLICE=always-malloc这是源代码:
This question is not a duplicate of many others, bekause I do use G_DEBUG=gc-friendly and G_SLICE=always-mallocHere is the source code:
#include <glib.h>
int main (int argc, char *argv[])
{
GHashTable *ht;
ht=g_hash_table_new(g_str_hash,g_str_equal);
g_hash_table_insert(ht,"foo","bar");
g_hash_table_destroy(ht);
return 0;
}
这是Valgrind在此代码上的输出:
And here is Valgrind's output on this code:
# G_DEBUG=gc-friendly G_SLICE=always-malloc valgrind --leak-check=full --show-reachable=yes ./test_vg
==1880== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==1880== Copyright (C) 2002-2010, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==1880== Using Valgrind-3.6.0 and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info
==1880== Command: ./test_vg
==1880==
==1880==
==1880== HEAP SUMMARY:
==1880== in use at exit: 1,260 bytes in 3 blocks
==1880== total heap usage: 5 allocs, 2 frees, 1,524 bytes allocated
==1880==
==1880== 252 bytes in 1 blocks are still reachable in loss record 1 of 3
==1880== at 0x4A04A28: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:467)
==1880== by 0x35C8241707: g_malloc0 (in /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0.2200.5)
==1880== by 0x35C8255742: ??? (in /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0.2200.5)
==1880== by 0x35C825669D: g_slice_alloc (in /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0.2200.5)
==1880== by 0x35C822B1D2: g_hash_table_new_full (in /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0.2200.5)
==1880== by 0x400671: main (in /home/data/test_vg)
==1880==
==1880== 504 bytes in 1 blocks are still reachable in loss record 2 of 3
==1880== at 0x4A04A28: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:467)
==1880== by 0x35C8241707: g_malloc0 (in /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0.2200.5)
==1880== by 0x35C8255722: ??? (in /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0.2200.5)
==1880== by 0x35C825669D: g_slice_alloc (in /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0.2200.5)
==1880== by 0x35C822B1D2: g_hash_table_new_full (in /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0.2200.5)
==1880== by 0x400671: main (in /home/data/test_vg)
==1880==
==1880== 504 bytes in 1 blocks are still reachable in loss record 3 of 3
==1880== at 0x4A04A28: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:467)
==1880== by 0x35C8241707: g_malloc0 (in /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0.2200.5)
==1880== by 0x35C825578B: ??? (in /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0.2200.5)
==1880== by 0x35C825669D: g_slice_alloc (in /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0.2200.5)
==1880== by 0x35C822B1D2: g_hash_table_new_full (in /lib64/libglib-2.0.so.0.2200.5)
==1880== by 0x400671: main (in /home/data/test_vg)
==1880==
==1880== LEAK SUMMARY:
==1880== definitely lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==1880== indirectly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==1880== possibly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==1880== still reachable: 1,260 bytes in 3 blocks
==1880== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==1880==
==1880== For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -v
==1880== ERROR SUMMARY: 0 errors from 0 contexts (suppressed: 6 from 6)
这是内存泄漏吗?
推荐答案
要回答您的问题:不，这不是传统意义上的内存泄漏.您的代码很好.
To answer your question: No, this is not a memory leak in the traditional sense. Your code is fine.
即使使用G_DEBUG=gc-friendly和G_SLICE=always-malloc，GLib始终在退出时保留仍可访问"的内存.不要使用--show-reachable=yes选项，否则在使用GLib时，您将始终受到污染的Valgrind输出.但是，请注意，如果分配用于将指针保存在静态或全局变量中的内存(仍可访问"内存).在这种情况下，您可能最终会忽略自己的真实"泄漏.
Even if you use G_DEBUG=gc-friendly and G_SLICE=always-malloc, GLib always leaves "still reachable" memory on exit. Don't use the --show-reachable=yes option, otherwise you'll always have a polluted Valgrind output when using GLib. However, be careful if you allocate memory to which you keep pointers in static or global variables ("still reachable" memory). In this case you might end up ignoring your own "real" leaks.
这篇关于glib2是否真的使用ALWAYS-MALLOC泄漏内存?的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持！