On 12/15/10 01:10 PM, Leigh Johnston wrote:
On 14/12/2010 22:45, Ian Collins wrote:
On 12/15/10 11:32 AM, Leigh Johnston wrote:
You are starting to seem like a tedious troll.
Ah good, an insult. I win.
You have not won.
Microsoft agrees with me on the definition of a memory leak. Given the
following program:
char* p = new char[4242];
int main()
{
_CrtSetDbgFlag ( _CRTDBG_ALLOC_MEM_DF | _CRTDBG_LEAK_CHECK_DF );
}
The following is output on program termination:
Detected memory leaks!
Dumping objects ->
{68} normal block at 0x007C4A20, 4242 bytes long.
Data: < > CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD
Object dump complete.
Well valgrind and dbx agree with me:
dbx:
Checking for memory leaks...
Actual leaks report (actual leaks: 0 total size: 0 bytes)
Possible leaks report (possible leaks: 0 total size: 0 bytes)
Checking for memory use...
Blocks in use report (blocks in use: 1 total size: 4242 bytes)
Total % of Num of Avg Allocation call stack
Size All Blocks Size
========== ==== ====== ====== =======================================
4242 100% 1 4242 operator new < operator new[] < __SLIP.INIT_A <
__STATIC_CONSTRUCTOR < __cplus_fini_at_exit
valgrind:
==2276== HEAP SUMMARY:
==2276== in use at exit: 4,242 bytes in 1 blocks
==2276== total heap usage: 1 allocs, 0 frees, 4,242 bytes allocated
==2276==
==2276== LEAK SUMMARY:
==2276== definitely lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==2276== indirectly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==2276== possibly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==2276== still reachable: 4,242 bytes in 1 blocks
==2276== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks