c++ 导致内存泄露的一些小问题与解决方法

 

Recently i had a project which had some of the worst memory leaks in C++ i’ve ever had to deal with. It had just about every memory leak problem you could think of, all of which could have been solved with a little bit of planning.

Using tools such as Valgrind or Instruments surely helps, but they can only help you so much.

So if you have a nightmarish C++ project with memory leaks, heres a few ways in which you can solve them.

 

Stage 1: Forgetfulness

We start off with a simple case: when you make an object but never delete it. e.g.:

  Object *foo = new Object(); // foo never deleted

Which can be solved by:

  delete foo; // <<< delete the object

 

Stage 2: Garbage Collection

Sometimes you have a pointer to an object which is re-assigned at one point, but the old object is never deleted.

  Object *foo;

  foo = new Object();
  // ... later on ...
  foo = new Object();

Which can be solved by deleting the object before re-assigning:

  Object *foo;

  foo = new Object();
  // ... later on ...
  delete foo; // <<< delete the old object
  foo = new Object();

 

Stage 3: Destructors

Some people assume if you make a couple of classes like this:

  class Foo
  {
    Foo();
    ~Foo();
  };

  class Woo : public Foo
  {
    Woo();
    ~Woo();
  };

If you destroy an instance of Woo both ~Woo and ~Foo will be called. Only it wont: only~Woo will be called. Anything you free in~Foo will never be freed.

So if you want ~Foo to be called too, the destructor for Foo needs to be virtual, i.e.:

  class Foo
  {
    Foo();
    virtual ~Foo(); // <<<
  };

Stage 4: Spaghetti

Things start getting complicated when you have objects which can be referenced by multiple objects. For example:

Object *foo, *child1,*child2

foo= new Object();

 child1= new Object();

 child1->parent= foo;

child2= new Object(foo);

child1->parent= foo;

Now when do we delete foo? If we make child1 or child2 delete it, we’ll probably get a crash when we delete foo twice. If we delete it elsewhere, how do we know child1 or child2 aren’t still using it?

One possible solution is to use a reference counting system like in Objective C, so when we reach 0 we delete the object:

class Object

{

 Object* retain()

{

retainCount++; // object is being used return this;

 }

void release()

 { --retainCount; // object is no longer being used

if (retainCount <= 0)

delete this;

}

virtual ~Object()

 { if (parent)

parent->release();

}

Object *parent;

}; // ...

Object   *foo, *child1, *child2;

foo = new Object();

child1 = new Object();

child1->parent = foo->retain(); // object is being used by child1

child2 = new Object(foo);

child1->parent = foo->retain(); // object is being used by child2

 

If you want to be more fancy you can make a smart pointer class, e.g.

// Modified Object

class Object

{

Object* retain()

{

retainCount++; return this;

}

 void release()

{

 --retainCount;

if (retainCount <= 0)

 delete this;

}

virtual ~Object()

 {

 parent = NULL;

 }

ObjectReference parent;

}; // The smart pointer

class ObjectReference

 {

 public: // Constructor

ObjectReference()

{

object = NULL;

} // Assignment initializer

ObjectReference(const ObjectReference &ref)

{

object = ref.object ? ref.object->retain() : NULL;

 } // Assignment operator

ObjectReference& operator=(const ObjectReference &ref)

{

 if (object)

object->release();

object = ref.object ? ref.object->retain() : NULL;

return *this;

} // Pointer operator

operator Object*()

 {

return object;

}

Object *object; // reference to Object }; // ...

Object *foo, *child1, *child2;

foo = new Object();

 child1 = new Object();

 child1->parent = foo; // automagically retains

foo child2 = new Object();

child1->parent = foo; // automagically retains foo

 

Beware however that when you get a circular reference your objects may never be released using this method.

Stage 5: Runaway Spaghetti

Even if you have a reference counting system, you might encounter situations where you release or retain objects too much. Typically memory leak tools only tell you where objects were allocated, not who the retain/release culprit is.

One way of solving this is to keep track of where you retain and release objects

 

class Object

{

Object* retain(char *file=NULL, int line=0, char *owner=NULL, int addr=0)

{

retainCount++;

if (owner)

printf("%x: retain (%i) [%s @ %i] OWNER %s[%x]", this, retainCount, file ? file : "", line, owner, addr);

else

printf("%x: retain (%i) [%s @ %i]", this, retainCount, file ? file : "", line); return this;

 }

 void release(char *file=NULL, int line=0, char *owner = NULL, int addr=0)

{ -

-retainCount;

if (owner)

 printf("%x: release (%i) [%s @ %i] OWNER %s[%x]", this, retainCount,file ? file : "", line, owner, addr);

else

printf("%x: release (%i) [%s @ %i]", this, retainCount,file ? file : "", line);

if (retainCount <= 0)

 delete this;

} // ... }; // ...

Object *foo, *child1, *child2;

foo = new Object();

child1 = new Object();

 child1->parent = foo->retain(__FILE__, __LINE__, "Object", child1);

child2 = new Object(foo);

child1->parent = foo->retain(__FILE__, __LINE__, "Object", child2);

 

Then you can simply examine your logs and spot the problematic line of code for that extra release or retain.

 

Final boss

Of course once you have solved all of your leaks, you might find you bump into the arch nemesis: Memory Corruption. Specifically, this:

class Entity

 {

public: float mNextThink;

 Entity();

 void think();

 };

Entity::Entity()

{

}

What is wrong with this? Well say we have some code like this….

for (int i=0; i<mEntities.size(); i++)

{

if (smCurrentTime >= mEntities[i]->mNextThink)

 mEntities[i]->think();

}

Then think may never be called, since mNextThink is never initialized, so its value will be undefined. It could be 0, it could be -10000. Who knows. The solution is simple:

Entity::Entity() :

 mNextThink(0) // set a default value

{

 }

With all of your memory leaks solved, you should now be able to sleep better.