4

这个问题与许多其他问题不同，因为我确实使用过G_DEBUG=gc-friendly，G_SLICE=always-malloc 这是源代码：

#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 对此代码的输出：

# 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)

是内存泄漏吗？

4

3 回答 3

2

回答你的问题：不，这不是传统意义上的内存泄漏。你的代码很好。

即使你使用G_DEBUG=gc-friendlyand G_SLICE=always-malloc，GLib 总是在退出时留下“仍然可以访问”的内存。不要使用该--show-reachable=yes选项，否则在使用 GLib 时，您将始终得到污染的 Valgrind 输出。但是，如果您分配在静态或全局变量中保存指针的内存（“仍可访问”内存），请小心。在这种情况下，您最终可能会忽略您自己的“真实”泄漏。

于 2014-08-16T18:00:43.000 回答
1

在使用 Valgrind 检查 GLib 2 程序时，我总是遇到很多错误和无法访问的项目。在您的情况下，泄漏似乎来自哈希表的创建。我会创建第二个哈希表，看看你是否得到了额外的块（否则，它可能是 GLib 中的一些内部初始化）。

wiki.gnome.org 上有一些关于将 Valgrind 与 GLIB 和 GTK 结合使用的说明。

于 2013-11-08T18:22:42.013 回答
1

尝试传递--suppressions=/usr/share/glib-2.0/valgrind/glib.supp给valgrind. 它抑制了来自 GLib 的误报。

于 2019-08-20T06:49:59.017 回答