Welcome to OStack Knowledge Sharing Community for programmer and developer-Open, Learning and Share
Welcome To Ask or Share your Answers For Others

Categories

0 votes
820 views
in Technique[技术] by (71.8m points)

c - Why valgrind report my memory as "definitely lost"?

Consider this code:

#include <stdlib.h>

int* alloc()
{
    return malloc(250 * sizeof(int));
}

int main()
{
    int i;
    int *vars[3];
    for(i = 0; i < 3; ++i) {
        vars[i] = alloc();
    }
}

Valgrind output:

$ valgrind --leak-check=full ./lala
==16775== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==16775== Copyright (C) 2002-2013, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==16775== Using Valgrind-3.10.1 and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info
==16775== Command: ./lala
==16775== 
==16775== 
==16775== HEAP SUMMARY:
==16775==     in use at exit: 3,000 bytes in 3 blocks
==16775==   total heap usage: 3 allocs, 0 frees, 3,000 bytes allocated
==16775== 
==16775== 3,000 bytes in 3 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 1 of 1
==16775==    at 0x4C2BBA0: malloc (in /usr/lib/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so)
==16775==    by 0x4005B3: alloc (lala.c:5)
==16775==    by 0x4005DF: main (lala.c:13)
==16775== 
==16775== LEAK SUMMARY:
==16775==    definitely lost: 3,000 bytes in 3 blocks
==16775==    indirectly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==16775==      possibly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==16775==    still reachable: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==16775==         suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==16775== 
==16775== For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -v
==16775== ERROR SUMMARY: 1 errors from 1 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)

According to Valgrind's manual:

If --leak-check is set appropriately, for each remaining block, Memcheck determines if the block is reachable from pointers within the root-set. The root-set consists of (a) general purpose registers of all threads, and (b) initialized, aligned, pointer-sized data words in accessible client memory, including stacks.

For what I understand, since the "definitely lost" memory are still pointed to from the main() function's stack, they should be categorized as "still reachable", right?

If not, how can I configure Valgrind to try to reach memory blocks from main's stack, to determine if they are "still reachable"?

EDIT:

Please don't tell me to free the pointers at the end of main, that is not what I am asking about. For the distinction between "still reachable" and "definitely lost" on Valgrind terms, see this answer: https://stackoverflow.com/a/3857638/578749

See Question&Answers more detail:os

与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…
Welcome To Ask or Share your Answers For Others

1 Answer

0 votes
by (71.8m points)

Your memory is definitely lost when the stack of main is destroyed, that is, when it returns. Thus, the solution is not to return.

#include <stdlib.h>
int main()
{
    /* your code here */
    exit(0);
}

The behavior or main returning 0 or exit(0) should be equivalent.

Now the output is:

==5035== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==5035== Copyright (C) 2002-2013, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==5035== Using Valgrind-3.10.1 and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info
==5035== Command: ./a.out
==5035== 
==5035== 
==5035== HEAP SUMMARY:
==5035==     in use at exit: 3,000 bytes in 3 blocks
==5035==   total heap usage: 3 allocs, 0 frees, 3,000 bytes allocated
==5035== 
==5035== LEAK SUMMARY:
==5035==    definitely lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==5035==    indirectly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==5035==      possibly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==5035==    still reachable: 3,000 bytes in 3 blocks
==5035==         suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==5035== Reachable blocks (those to which a pointer was found) are not shown.
==5035== To see them, rerun with: --leak-check=full --show-leak-kinds=all
==5035== 
==5035== For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -v
==5035== ERROR SUMMARY: 0 errors from 0 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)

与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…
Welcome to OStack Knowledge Sharing Community for programmer and developer-Open, Learning and Share
Click Here to Ask a Question

...