Related
I've run into memory leaks many times. Usually when I'm malloc-ing like there's no tomorrow, or dangling FILE *s like dirty laundry. I generally assume (read: hope desperately) that all memory is cleaned up at least when the program terminates. Are there any situations where leaked memory won't be collected when the program terminates, or crashes?
If the answer varies widely from language-to-language, then let's focus on C(++).
Please note hyperbolic usage of the phrase, 'like there's no tomorrow', and 'dangling ... like dirty laundry'. Unsafe* malloc*ing can hurt the ones you love. Also, please use caution with dirty laundry.
No. Operating systems free all resources held by processes when they exit.
This applies to all resources the operating system maintains: memory, open files, network connections, window handles...
That said, if the program is running on an embedded system without an operating system, or with a very simple or buggy operating system, the memory might be unusable until a reboot. But if you were in that situation you probably wouldn't be asking this question.
The operating system may take a long time to free certain resources. For example the TCP port that a network server uses to accept connections may take minutes to become free, even if properly closed by the program. A networked program may also hold remote resources such as database objects. The remote system should free those resources when the network connection is lost, but it may take even longer than the local operating system.
The C Standard does not specify that memory allocated by malloc is released when the program terminates. This done by the operating system and not all OSes (usually these are in the embedded world) release the memory when the program terminates.
As all the answers have covered most aspects of your question w.r.t. modern OSes, but historically, there is one that is worth mentioning if you have ever programmed in the DOS world. Terminant and Stay Resident (TSR) programs would usually return control to the system but would reside in memory which could be revived by a software / hardware interrupt. It was normal to see messages like "out of memory! try unloading some of your TSRs" when working on these OSes.
So technically the program terminates, but because it still resides on memory, any memory leak would not be released unless you unload the program.
So you can consider this to be another case apart from OSes not reclaiming memory either because it's buggy or because the embedded OS is designed to do so.
I remember one more example. Customer Information Control System (CICS), a transaction server which runs primarily on IBM mainframes is pseudo-conversational. When executed, it processes the user entered data, generates another set of data for the user, transferring to the user terminal node and terminates. On activating the attention key, it again revives to process another set of data. Because the way it behaves, technically again, the OS won't reclaim memory from the terminated CICS Programs, unless you recycle the CICS transaction server.
Like the others have said, most operating systems will reclaim allocated memory upon process termination (and probably other resources like network sockets, file handles, etc).
Having said that, the memory may not be the only thing you need to worry about when dealing with new/delete (instead of raw malloc/free). The memory that's allocated in new may get reclaimed, but things that may be done in the destructors of the objects will not happen. Perhaps the destructor of some class writes a sentinel value into a file upon destruction. If the process just terminates, the file handle may get flushed and the memory reclaimed, but that sentinel value wouldn't get written.
Moral of the story, always clean up after yourself. Don't let things dangle. Don't rely on the OS cleaning up after you. Clean up after yourself.
This is more likely to depend on operating system than language. Ultimately any program in any language will get it's memory from the operating system.
I've never heard of an operating system that doesn't recycle memory when a program exits/crashes. So if your program has an upper bound on the memory it needs to allocate, then just allocating and never freeing is perfectly reasonable.
If the program is ever turned into a dynamic component ("plugin") that is loaded into another program's address space, it will be troublesome, even on an operating system with tidy memory management. We don't even have to think about the code being ported to less capable systems.
On the other hand, releasing all memory can impact the performance of a program's cleanup.
One program I was working on, a certain test case required 30 seconds or more for the program to exit, because it was recursing through the graph of all dynamic memory and releasing it piece by piece.
A reasonable solution is to have the capability there and cover it with test cases, but turn it off in production code so the application quits fast.
All operating systems deserving the title will clean up the mess your process made after termination. But there are always unforeseen events, what if it was denied access somehow and some poor programmer did not foresee the possibility and so it doesn't try again a bit later?
Always safer to just clean up yourself IF memory leaks are mission critical - otherwise not really worth the effort IMO if that effort is costly.
Edit:
You do need to clean up memory leaks if they are in place where they will accumulate, like in loops. The memory leaks I speak of are ones that build up in constant time throughout the course of the program, if you have a leak of any other sort it will most likely be a serious problem sooner or later.
In technical terms if your leaks are of memory 'complexity' O(1) they are fine in most cases, O(logn) already unpleasant (and in some cases fatal) and O(N)+ intolerable.
Shared memory on POSIX compliant systems persists until shm_unlink is called or the system is rebooted.
If you have interprocess communication, this can lead to other processes never completing and consuming resources depending on the protocol.
To give an example, I was once experimenting with printing to a PDF printer in Java when I terminated the JVM in the middle of a printer job, the PDF spooling process remained active, and I had to kill it in the task manager before I could retry printing.
We are all taught that you MUST free every pointer that is allocated. I'm a bit curious, though, about the real cost of not freeing memory. In some obvious cases, like when malloc() is called inside a loop or part of a thread execution, it's very important to free so there are no memory leaks. But consider the following two examples:
First, if I have code that's something like this:
int main()
{
char *a = malloc(1024);
/* Do some arbitrary stuff with 'a' (no alloc functions) */
return 0;
}
What's the real result here? My thinking is that the process dies and then the heap space is gone anyway so there's no harm in missing the call to free (however, I do recognize the importance of having it anyway for closure, maintainability, and good practice). Am I right in this thinking?
Second, let's say I have a program that acts a bit like a shell. Users can declare variables like aaa = 123 and those are stored in some dynamic data structure for later use. Clearly, it seems obvious that you'd use some solution that will calls some *alloc function (hashmap, linked list, something like that). For this kind of program, it doesn't make sense to ever free after calling malloc because these variables must be present at all times during the program's execution and there's no good way (that I can see) to implement this with statically allocated space. Is it bad design to have a bunch of memory that's allocated but only freed as part of the process ending? If so, what's the alternative?
Just about every modern operating system will recover all the allocated memory space after a program exits. The only exception I can think of might be something like Palm OS where the program's static storage and runtime memory are pretty much the same thing, so not freeing might cause the program to take up more storage. (I'm only speculating here.)
So generally, there's no harm in it, except the runtime cost of having more storage than you need. Certainly in the example you give, you want to keep the memory for a variable that might be used until it's cleared.
However, it's considered good style to free memory as soon as you don't need it any more, and to free anything you still have around on program exit. It's more of an exercise in knowing what memory you're using, and thinking about whether you still need it. If you don't keep track, you might have memory leaks.
On the other hand, the similar admonition to close your files on exit has a much more concrete result - if you don't, the data you wrote to them might not get flushed, or if they're a temp file, they might not get deleted when you're done. Also, database handles should have their transactions committed and then closed when you're done with them. Similarly, if you're using an object oriented language like C++ or Objective C, not freeing an object when you're done with it will mean the destructor will never get called, and any resources the class is responsible might not get cleaned up.
Yes you are right, your example doesn't do any harm (at least not on most modern operating systems). All the memory allocated by your process will be recovered by the operating system once the process exits.
Source: Allocation and GC Myths (PostScript alert!)
Allocation Myth 4: Non-garbage-collected programs
should always deallocate all memory
they allocate.
The Truth: Omitted
deallocations in frequently executed
code cause growing leaks. They are
rarely acceptable. but Programs that
retain most allocated memory until
program exit often perform better
without any intervening deallocation.
Malloc is much easier to implement if
there is no free.
In most cases, deallocating memory
just before program exit is pointless.
The OS will reclaim it anyway. Free
will touch and page in the dead
objects; the OS won't.
Consequence: Be careful with "leak
detectors" that count allocations.
Some "leaks" are good!
That said, you should really try to avoid all memory leaks!
Second question: your design is ok. If you need to store something until your application exits then its ok to do this with dynamic memory allocation. If you don't know the required size upfront, you can't use statically allocated memory.
=== What about future proofing and code reuse? ===
If you don't write the code to free the objects, then you are limiting the code to only being safe to use when you can depend on the memory being free'd by the process being closed ... i.e. small one-time use projects or "throw-away"[1] projects)... where you know when the process will end.
If you do write the code that free()s all your dynamically allocated memory, then you are future proofing the code and letting others use it in a larger project.
[1] regarding "throw-away" projects. Code used in "Throw-away" projects has a way of not being thrown away. Next thing you know ten years have passed and your "throw-away" code is still being used).
I heard a story about some guy who wrote some code just for fun to make his hardware work better. He said "just a hobby, won't be big and professional". Years later lots of people are using his "hobby" code.
You are correct, no harm is done and it's faster to just exit
There are various reasons for this:
All desktop and server environments simply release the entire memory space on exit(). They are unaware of program-internal data structures such as heaps.
Almost all free() implementations do not ever return memory to the operating system anyway.
More importantly, it's a waste of time when done right before exit(). At exit, memory pages and swap space are simply released. By contrast, a series of free() calls will burn CPU time and can result in disk paging operations, cache misses, and cache evictions.
Regarding the possiblility of future code reuse justifing the certainty of pointless ops: that's a consideration but it's arguably not the Agile way. YAGNI!
I completely disagree with everyone who says OP is correct or there is no harm.
Everyone is talking about a modern and/or legacy OS's.
But what if I'm in an environment where I simply have no OS?
Where there isn't anything?
Imagine now you are using thread styled interrupts and allocate memory.
In the C standard ISO/IEC:9899 is the lifetime of memory stated as:
7.20.3 Memory management functions
1 The order and contiguity of storage allocated by successive calls to the calloc,
malloc, and realloc functions is unspecified. The pointer returned if the allocation
succeeds is suitably aligned so that it may be assigned to a pointer to any type of object
and then used to access such an object or an array of such objects in the space allocated
(until the space is explicitly deallocated). The lifetime of an allocated object extends
from the allocation until the deallocation.[...]
So it has not to be given that the environment is doing the freeing job for you.
Otherwise it would be added to the last sentence: "Or until the program terminates."
So in other words:
Not freeing memory is not just bad practice. It produces non portable and not C conform code.
Which can at least be seen as 'correct, if the following: [...], is supported by environment'.
But in cases where you have no OS at all, no one is doing the job for you
(I know generally you don't allocate and reallocate memory on embedded systems,
but there are cases where you may want to.)
So speaking in general plain C (as which the OP is tagged),
this is simply producing erroneous and non portable code.
I typically free every allocated block once I'm sure that I'm done with it. Today, my program's entry point might be main(int argc, char *argv[]) , but tomorrow it might be foo_entry_point(char **args, struct foo *f) and typed as a function pointer.
So, if that happens, I now have a leak.
Regarding your second question, if my program took input like a=5, I would allocate space for a, or re-allocate the same space on a subsequent a="foo". This would remain allocated until:
The user typed 'unset a'
My cleanup function was entered, either servicing a signal or the user typed 'quit'
I can not think of any modern OS that does not reclaim memory after a process exits. Then again, free() is cheap, why not clean up? As others have said, tools like valgrind are great for spotting leaks that you really do need to worry about. Even though the blocks you example would be labeled as 'still reachable' , its just extra noise in the output when you're trying to ensure you have no leaks.
Another myth is "If its in main(), I don't have to free it", this is incorrect. Consider the following:
char *t;
for (i=0; i < 255; i++) {
t = strdup(foo->name);
let_strtok_eat_away_at(t);
}
If that came prior to forking / daemonizing (and in theory running forever), your program has just leaked an undetermined size of t 255 times.
A good, well written program should always clean up after itself. Free all memory, flush all files, close all descriptors, unlink all temporary files, etc. This cleanup function should be reached upon normal termination, or upon receiving various kinds of fatal signals, unless you want to leave some files laying around so you can detect a crash and resume.
Really, be kind to the poor soul who has to maintain your stuff when you move on to other things .. hand it to them 'valgrind clean' :)
It is completely fine to leave memory unfreed when you exit; malloc() allocates the memory from the memory area called "the heap", and the complete heap of a process is freed when the process exits.
That being said, one reason why people still insist that it is good to free everything before exiting is that memory debuggers (e.g. valgrind on Linux) detect the unfreed blocks as memory leaks, and if you have also "real" memory leaks, it becomes more difficult to spot them if you also get "fake" results at the end.
This code will usually work alright, but consider the problem of code reuse.
You may have written some code snippet which doesn't free allocated memory, it is run in such a way that memory is then automatically reclaimed. Seems allright.
Then someone else copies your snippet into his project in such a way that it is executed one thousand times per second. That person now has a huge memory leak in his program. Not very good in general, usually fatal for a server application.
Code reuse is typical in enterprises. Usually the company owns all the code its employees produce and every department may reuse whatever the company owns. So by writing such "innocently-looking" code you cause potential headache to other people. This may get you fired.
What's the real result here?
Your program leaked the memory. Depending on your OS, it may have been recovered.
Most modern desktop operating systems do recover leaked memory at process termination, making it sadly common to ignore the problem (as can be seen by many other answers here.)
But you are relying on a safety feature not being part of the language, one you should not rely upon. Your code might run on a system where this behaviour does result in a "hard" memory leak, next time.
Your code might end up running in kernel mode, or on vintage / embedded operating systems which do not employ memory protection as a tradeoff. (MMUs take up die space, memory protection costs additional CPU cycles, and it is not too much to ask from a programmer to clean up after himself).
You can use and re-use memory (and other resources) any way you like, but make sure you deallocated all resources before exiting.
If you're using the memory you've allocated, then you're not doing anything wrong. It becomes a problem when you write functions (other than main) that allocate memory without freeing it, and without making it available to the rest of your program. Then your program continues running with that memory allocated to it, but no way of using it. Your program and other running programs are deprived of that memory.
Edit: It's not 100% accurate to say that other running programs are deprived of that memory. The operating system can always let them use it at the expense of swapping your program out to virtual memory (</handwaving>). The point is, though, that if your program frees memory that it isn't using then a virtual memory swap is less likely to be necessary.
There's actually a section in the OSTEP online textbook for an undergraduate course in operating systems which discusses exactly your question.
The relevant section is "Forgetting To Free Memory" in the Memory API chapter on page 6 which gives the following explanation:
In some cases, it may seem like not calling free() is reasonable. For
example, your program is short-lived, and will soon exit; in this case,
when the process dies, the OS will clean up all of its allocated pages and
thus no memory leak will take place per se. While this certainly “works”
(see the aside on page 7), it is probably a bad habit to develop, so be wary
of choosing such a strategy
This excerpt is in the context of introducing the concept of virtual memory. Basically at this point in the book, the authors explain that one of the goals of an operating system is to "virtualize memory," that is, to let every program believe that it has access to a very large memory address space.
Behind the scenes, the operating system will translate "virtual addresses" the user sees to actual addresses pointing to physical memory.
However, sharing resources such as physical memory requires the operating system to keep track of what processes are using it. So if a process terminates, then it is within the capabilities and the design goals of the operating system to reclaim the process's memory so that it can redistribute and share the memory with other processes.
EDIT: The aside mentioned in the excerpt is copied below.
ASIDE: WHY NO MEMORY IS LEAKED ONCE YOUR PROCESS EXITS
When you write a short-lived program, you might allocate some space
using malloc(). The program runs and is about to complete: is there
need to call free() a bunch of times just before exiting? While it seems
wrong not to, no memory will be "lost" in any real sense. The reason is
simple: there are really two levels of memory management in the system.
The first level of memory management is performed by the OS, which
hands out memory to processes when they run, and takes it back when
processes exit (or otherwise die). The second level of management
is within each process, for example within the heap when you call
malloc() and free(). Even if you fail to call free() (and thus leak
memory in the heap), the operating system will reclaim all the memory of
the process (including those pages for code, stack, and, as relevant here,
heap) when the program is finished running. No matter what the state
of your heap in your address space, the OS takes back all of those pages
when the process dies, thus ensuring that no memory is lost despite the
fact that you didn’t free it.
Thus, for short-lived programs, leaking memory often does not cause any
operational problems (though it may be considered poor form). When
you write a long-running server (such as a web server or database management
system, which never exit), leaked memory is a much bigger issue,
and will eventually lead to a crash when the application runs out of
memory. And of course, leaking memory is an even larger issue inside
one particular program: the operating system itself. Showing us once
again: those who write the kernel code have the toughest job of all...
from Page 7 of Memory API chapter of
Operating Systems: Three Easy Pieces
Remzi H. Arpaci-Dusseau and Andrea C. Arpaci-Dusseau
Arpaci-Dusseau Books
March, 2015 (Version 0.90)
There's no real danger in not freeing your variables, but if you assign a pointer to a block of memory to a different block of memory without freeing the first block, the first block is no longer accessible but still takes up space. This is what's called a memory leak, and if you do this with regularity then your process will start to consume more and more memory, taking away system resources from other processes.
If the process is short-lived you can often get away with doing this as all allocated memory is reclaimed by the operating system when the process completes, but I would advise getting in the habit of freeing all memory you have no further use for.
You are correct, memory is automatically freed when the process exits. Some people strive not to do extensive cleanup when the process is terminated, since it will all be relinquished to the operating system. However, while your program is running you should free unused memory. If you don't, you may eventually run out or cause excessive paging if your working set gets too big.
You are absolutely correct in that respect. In small trivial programs where a variable must exist until the death of the program, there is no real benefit to deallocating the memory.
In fact, I had once been involved in a project where each execution of the program was very complex but relatively short-lived, and the decision was to just keep memory allocated and not destabilize the project by making mistakes deallocating it.
That being said, in most programs this is not really an option, or it can lead you to run out of memory.
It depends on the scope of the project that you're working on. In the context of your question, and I mean just your question, then it doesn't matter.
For a further explanation (optional), some scenarios I have noticed from this whole discussion is as follow:
(1) - If you're working in an embedded environment where you cannot rely on the main OS' to reclaim the memory for you, then you should free them since memory leaks can really crash the program if done unnoticed.
(2) - If you're working on a personal project where you won't disclose it to anyone else, then you can skip it (assuming you're using it on the main OS') or include it for "best practices" sake.
(3) - If you're working on a project and plan to have it open source, then you need to do more research into your audience and figure out if freeing the memory would be the better choice.
(4) - If you have a large library and your audience consisted of only the main OS', then you don't need to free it as their OS' will help them to do so. In the meantime, by not freeing, your libraries/program may help to make the overall performance snappier since the program does not have to close every data structure, prolonging the shutdown time (imagine a very slow excruciating wait to shut down your computer before leaving the house...)
I can go on and on specifying which course to take, but it ultimately depends on what you want to achieve with your program. Freeing memory is considered good practice in some cases and not so much in some so it ultimately depends on the specific situation you're in and asking the right questions at the right time. Good luck!
If you're developing an application from scratch, you can make some educated choices about when to call free. Your example program is fine: it allocates memory, maybe you have it work for a few seconds, and then closes, freeing all the resources it claimed.
If you're writing anything else, though -- a server/long-running application, or a library to be used by someone else, you should expect to call free on everything you malloc.
Ignoring the pragmatic side for a second, it's much safer to follow the stricter approach, and force yourself to free everything you malloc. If you're not in the habit of watching for memory leaks whenever you code, you could easily spring a few leaks. So in other words, yes -- you can get away without it; please be careful, though.
If a program forgets to free a few Megabytes before it exits the operating system will free them. But if your program runs for weeks at a time and a loop inside the program forgets to free a few bytes in each iteration you will have a mighty memory leak that will eat up all the available memory in your computer unless you reboot it on a regular basis => even small memory leaks might be bad if the program is used for a seriously big task even if it originally wasn't designed for one.
It depends on the OS environment the program is running in, as others have already noted, and for long running processes, freeing memory and avoiding even very slow leaks is important always. But if the operating system deals with stuff, as Unix has done for example since probably forever, then you don't need to free memory, nor close files (the kernel closes all open file descriptors when a process exits.)
If your program allocates a lot of memory, it may even be beneficial to exit without "hesitation". I find that when I quit Firefox, it spends several !minutes ! paging in gigabytes of memory in many processes. I guess this is due to having to call destructors on C++ objects. This is actually terrible. Some might argue, that this is necessary to save state consistently, but in my opinion, long-running interactive programs like browsers, editors and design programs, just to mention a few, should ensure that any state information, preferences, open windows/pages, documents etc is frequently written to permanent storage, to avoid loss of work in case of a crash. Then this state-saving can be performed again quickly when the user elects to quit, and when completed, the processes should just exit immediately.
All memory allocated for this process will be marked unused by OS then reused, because the memory allocation is done by user space functions.
Imagine OS is a god, and the memories is the materials for creating a wolrd of process, god use some of materials creat a world (or to say OS reserved some of memory and create a process in it). No matter what the creatures in this world have done the materials not belong to this world won't be affected. After this world expired, OS the god, can recycle materials allocated for this world.
Modern OS may have different details on releasing user space memory, but that has to be a basic duty of OS.
I think that your two examples are actually only one: the free() should occur only at the end of the process, which as you point out is useless since the process is terminating.
In you second example though, the only difference is that you allow an undefined number of malloc(), which could lead to running out of memory. The only way to handle the situation is to check the return code of malloc() and act accordingly.
Suppose I had a program like this:
int main(void)
{
int* arr = new int[x];
//processing; neglect to call delete[]
return 0;
}
In a trivial example such as this, I assume there is little actual harm in neglecting to free the memory allocated for arr, since it should be released by the OS when the program is finished running. For any non-trivial program, however, this is considered to be bad practice and will lead to memory leaks.
My question is, what are the consequences of memory leaks in a non-trivial program? I realize that memory leaks are bad practice, but I do not understand why they are bad and what trouble they cause.
A memory leak can diminish the performance of the computer by reducing the amount of available memory. Eventually, in the worst case, too much of the available memory may become allocated and all or part of the system or device stops working correctly, the application fails, or the system slows down unacceptably due to thrashing.
Memory leaks may not be serious or even detectable by normal means. In modern operating systems, normal memory used by an application is released when the application terminates. This means that a memory leak in a program that only runs for a short time may not be noticed and is rarely serious.
Much more serious leaks include those:
where the program runs for an extended time and consumes additional memory over time, such as background tasks on servers, but especially in embedded devices which may be left running for many years
where new memory is allocated frequently for one-time tasks, such as when rendering the frames of a computer game or animated video
where the program can request memory — such as shared memory — that is not released, even when the program terminates
where memory is very limited, such as in an embedded system or portable device
where the leak occurs within the operating system or memory manager
when a system device driver causes the leak
running on an operating system that does not automatically release memory on program termination. Often on such machines if memory is lost, it can only be reclaimed by a reboot, an example of such a system being AmigaOS.
Check out here for more info.
There is an underlying assumption to your question:
The role of delete and delete[] is solely to release memory.
... and it is erroneous.
For better or worse, delete and delete[] have a dual role:
Run destructors
Free memory (by calling the right overload of operator delete)
With the corrected assumption, we can now ask the corrected question:
What is the risk in not calling delete/delete[] to end the lifetime of dynamically allocated variables ?
As mentioned, an obvious risk is leaking memory (and ultimately crashing). However this is the least of your worries. The much bigger risk is undefined behavior, which means that:
compiler may inadvertently not produce executable code that behaves as expected: Garbage in, Garbage out.
in pragmatic terms, the most likely output is that destructors are not run...
The latter is extremely worrisome:
Mutexes: Forget to release a lock and you get a deadlock...
File Descriptors: Some platforms (such as FreeBSD I believe) have a notoriously low default limit on the number of file descriptors a process may open; fail to close your file descriptors and you will not be able to open any new file or socket!
Sockets: on top of being a file descriptor, there is a limited range of ports associated to an IP (which with the latest version of Linux is no longer global, yeah!). The absolute maximum is 65,536 (u16...) but the ephemeral port range is usually much smaller (half of it). If you forget to release connections in a timely fashion you can easily end up in a situation where even though you have plenty of bandwidth available, your server stops accepting new connections because there is no ephemeral port available.
...
The problem with the attitude of well, I got enough memory anyway is that memory is probably the least of your worries simply because memory is probably the least scarce resource you manipulate.
Of course you could say: Okay, I'll concentrate on other resources leak, but tools nowadays report them as memory leaks (and it's sufficient) so isolating that leak among hundreds/thousands is like seeking a needle in a haystack...
Note: did I mention that you can still run out of memory ? Whether on lower-end machines/systems or on a restricted processes/virtual-machines memory can be quite tight for the task at hand.
Note: if you find yourself calling delete, you are doing it wrong. Learn to use the Standard Library std::unique_ptr and its containers std::vector. In C++, automatic memory management is easy, the real challenge is to avoid dangling pointers...
Let's say we have this program running:
while(true)
{
int* arr = new int;
}
The short term problem is that your computer will eventually run out of memory and the program will crash.
Instead, we could have this program that would run forever because there is no memory leak:
while(true)
{
int* arr = new int;
delete arr;
}
When a simple program like this crashes there is no long term consequences because the operating system will free the memory after the crash.
But you can imagine more critical systems where a system crash will have catastrophic consequences such as:
while(true)
{
int* arr = new int;
generateOxygenForAstronauts();
}
Think about the astronauts and free your memory!
A tool that runs for a short period of time and then exits can often get away with having memory leaks, as your example indicates. But a program that is expected to run without failure for long periods of time must be completely free of memory leaks. As others have mentioned, the whole system will bog down first. Additionally, code that leaks memory often is very bad at handling allocation failures - the result of a failed allocation is usually a crash and loss of data. From the user's perspective, this crash usually happens at exactly the worst possible moment (e.g. during file save, when file buffers get allocated).
Well, it is a strange question, since the immediate answer is straightforward: as you lose memory to memory leaks, you can/will eventually run out of memory. How big a problem that represents to a specific program depends on how big each leak is, how often these leaks occur and for how long. That's all there is to it.
A program that allocates relatively low amount of memory and/or is not run continuously might not suffer any problems from memory leaks at all. But a program that is run continuously will eventually run out of memory, even if it leaks it very slowly.
Now, if one decided to look at it closer, every block of memory has two sides to it: it occupies a region of addresses in the address space of the process and it occupies a portion of the actual physical storage.
On a platform without virtual memory, both sides work against you. Once the memory block is leaked, you lose the address space and you lose the storage.
On a platform with virtual memory the actual storage is a practically unlimited resource. You can leak as much memory as you want, you will never run out of the actual storage (within practically reasonable limits, of course). A leaked memory block will eventually be pushed out to external storage and forgotten for good, so it will not directly affect the program in any negative way. However, it will still hold its region of address space. And the address space still remains a limited resource, which you can run out of.
One can say, that if we take an imaginary virtual memory platform with address space that is overwhelmingly larger than anything ever consumable by our process (say, 2048-bit platform and a typical text editor), then memory leaks will have no consequence for our program. But in real life memory leaks typically constitute a serious problem.
Nowadays compilers do some optimization on your code before generating the binary. And so single newing without deleting it wouldn't have much of harm.
But in general by doing any "Newing" you should "delete" that portion of memory you've reserved in your program.
And also be aware that simple deleting doesn't guarantee not running out of memory.
There are different aspects from O.S. and the compiler side to control this feature.
This link may help you a little
And this one too
I'm trying to understand how the objects (variables, functions, structs, etc) work in c++. In this case I see there are basically two ways of storing them: the stack and the heap. Accordingly, whenever the heap storage is used it needs to be dealocated manually, but if the stack is used, then the dealocation is automaticcally done. so my question is related to the kinds of problems that bad practice might cause the program itself or to the computer. For example:
1.- Let'suposse that I run a program with a recursion solution by using an infinite iteration of functions. Theoretically the program crashes (stack overflow), but does it cause some trouble to the computer itself? (To the RAM maybe or to the SO).
2.- What happens if I forget to dealocate memory on the heap. I mean, does it just cause trouble to the program or it is permanent to the computer in general. I mean it might be that such memory could not be used never again or something.
3.- What are the problems of getting a segmentation fault (the heap).
Some other dangers or cares relevant to this are welcome.
Accordingly, whenever the stack storage is used it needs to be
dealocated manually, but if the heap is used, then the dealocation is
automaticcally done.
When you use stack - local variables in the function - they are deallocated automatically when the function ends (returns).
When you allocate from the heap, the memory allocated remains "in use" until it is freed. If you don't do that, your program, if it runes for long enough and keep allocating "stuff", will use all memory available to it, and eventually fail.
Note that "stackfault" is almost impossible to recover from in an application, because the stack is no longer usable when it's full, and most operations to "recover from error" will involve using SOME stack memory. The processor typically has a special trap to recover from stack fault, but that lands insise the operating system, and if the OS determines the application has run out of stack, it often shows no mercy at all - it just "kills" the application immediately.
1.- Let'suposse that I run a program with a recursion solution by using an infinite iteration of functions. Theoretically the program
crashes (stack overflow), but does it cause some trouble to the
computer itself? (To the RAM maybe or to the SO).
No, the computer itself is not harmed by this in and of itself. There may of course be data-loss if your program wasn't saving something that the user was working on.
Unless the hardware is very badly designed, it's very hard to write code that causes any harm to the computer, beyond loss of stored data (of course, if you write a program that fills the entire hard disk from the first to the last sector, your data will be overwritten with whatever your program fills the disk with - which may well cause the machine to not boot again until you have re-installed an operating system on the disk). But RAM and processors don't get damaged by bad coding (fortunately, as most programmers make mistakes now and again).
2.- What happens if I forget to dealocate memory on the heap. I mean, does it just cause trouble to the program or it is permanent to the
computer in general. I mean it might be that such memory could not be
used never again or something.
Once the program finishes (and most programs that use "too much memory" does terminate in some way or another, at some point).
Of course, how well the operating system and other applications handle "there is no memory at all available" varies a little bit. The operating system in itself is generally OK with it, but some drivers that are badly written may well crash, and thus cause your system to reboot if you are unlucky. Applications are more prone to crashing due to there not being enough memory, because allocations end up with NULL (zero) as the "returned address" when there is no memory available. Using address zero in a modern operating system will almost always lead to a "Segmentation fault" or similar problem (see below for more on that).
But these are extreme cases, most systems are set up such that one application gobbling all available memory will in itself fail before the rest of the system is impacted - not always, and it's certainly not guaranteed that the application "causing" the problem is the first one to be killed if the OS kills applications simply because they "eat a lot of memory". Linux does have a "Out of memory killer", which is a pretty drastic method to ensure the system can continue to work [by some definition of "work"].
3.- What are the problems of getting a segmentation fault (the heap).
Segmentation faults don't directly have anything to do with the heap. The term segmentation fault comes from older operating systems (Unix-style) that used "segments" of memory for different usages, and "Segmentation fault" was when the program went outside it's allocated segment. In modern systems, the memory is split into "pages" - typically 4KB each, but some processors have larger pages, and many modern processors support "large pages" of, for examble, 2MB or 1GB, which is used for large chunks of memory.
Now, if you use an address that points to a page that isn't there (or isn't "yours"), you get a segmentation fault. This, typically will end the application then and there. You can "trap" segmentation fault, but in all operating systems I'm aware of, it's not valid to try to continue from this "trap" - but you could for example store away some files to explain what happened and help troubleshoot the problem later, etc.
Firstly, your understanding of stack/heap allocations is backwards: stack-allocated data is automatically reclaimed when it goes out of scope. Dynamically-allocated data (data allocated with new or malloc), which is generally heap-allocated data, must be manually reclaimed with delete/free. However, you can use C++ destructors (RAII) to automatically reclaim dynamically-allocated resources.
Secondly, the 3 questions you ask have nothing to do with the C++ language, but rather they are only answerable with respect to the environment/operating system you run a C++ program in. Modern operating systems generally isolate processes so that a misbehaving process doesn't trample over OS memory or other running programs. In Linux, for example, each process has its own address space which is allocated by the kernel. If a misbehaving process attempts to write to a memory address outside of its allocated address space, the operating system will send a SIGSEGV (segmentation fault) which usually aborts the process. Older operating systems, such as MS-DOS, didn't have this protection, and so writing to an invalid pointer or triggering a stack overflow could potentially crash the whole operating system.
Likewise, with most mainstream modern operating systems (Linux/UNIX/Windows, etc.), memory leaks (data which is allocated dynamically but never reclaimed) only affect the process which allocated them. When the process terminates, all memory allocated by the process is reclaimed by the OS. But again, this is a feature of the operating system, and has nothing to do with the C++ language. There may be some older operating systems where leaked memory is never reclaimed, even by the OS.
1.- Let'suposse that I run a program with a recursion solution by using an infinite iteration of functions. Theoretically the program crashes (stack overflow), but does it cause some trouble to the computer itself? (To the RAM maybe or to the SO).
A stack overflow should not cause trouble neither to the Operating System nor to the computer. Any modern OS provides an isolated address space to each process. When a process tries to allocate more data in its stack than space is available, the OS detects it (usually via an exception) and terminates the process. This guarantees that no other processes are affected.
2.- What happens if I forget to dealocate memory on the heap. I mean, does it just cause trouble to the program or it is permanent to the computer in general. I mean it might be that such memory could not be used never again or something.
It depends on whether your program is a long running process or not, and the amount of data that you're failing to deallocate. In a long running process (e.g. a server) a recurrent memory leak can lead to thrashing: after some time, your process will be using so much memory that it won't fit in your physical memory. This is not a problem per se, because the OS provides virtual memory but the OS will spend more time moving memory pages from your physical memory to disk than doing useful work. This can affect other processes and it might slow down the system significantly (to the point that it might be better to reboot it).
3.- What are the problems of getting a segmentation fault (the heap).
A Segmentation Fault will crash your process. It's not directly related to the usage of the heap, but rather to accessing a memory region that does not belong to your process (because it's not part of its address space or because it was, but it was freed). Depending on what your process was doing, this can cause other problems: for instance, if the process was writing to a file when the crash happened it's very likely that it will end up corrupt.
First, stack means automatic memory and heap means manual memory. There are ways around both, but that's generally a more advanced question.
On modern operating systems, your application will crash but the operating system and machine as a whole will continue to function. There are of course exceptions to this rule, but they're (again) a more advanced topic.
Allocating from the heap and then not deallocating when you're done just means that your program is still considered to be using the memory even though you're not using it. If left unchecked, your program will fail to allocate memory (out of memory errors). How you handle out-of-memory errors could mean anything from a crash (unhandled error resulting in an unhandled exception or a NULL pointer being accessed and generating a segmentation fault) to odd behavior (caught exception or tested for NULL pointer but no special handling case) to nothing at all (properly handled).
On modern operating systems, the memory will be freed when your application exits.
A segmentation fault in the normal sense will simply crash your application. The operating system may immediately close file or socket handles. It may also perform a dump of your application's memory so that you can try to debug it posthumously with tools designed to do that (more advanced subject).
Alternatively, most (I think?) modern operating systems will use a special method of telling the program that it has done something bad. It is then up to the program's code to decide whether or not it can recover from that or perhaps add additional debug information for the operating system, or whatever really.
I suggest you look into auto pointers (also called smart pointers) for making your heap behave a little bit like a stack -- automatically deallocating memory when you're done using it. If you're using a modern compiler, see std::unique_ptr. If that type name can't be found, then look into the boost library (google). It's a little more advanced but highly valuable knowledge.
Hope this helps.
If I programmed — without knowing it — a memory leak, and the application terminates, is the leaked memory freed?
Yes, a "memory leak" is simply memory that a process no longer has a reference to, and thus can no longer free. The OS still keeps track of all the memory allocated to a process, and will free it when that process terminates.
In the vast majority of cases the OS will free the memory - as is the case with normal "flavors" of Windows, Linux, Solaris, etc. However it is important to note that in specialized environments such as various Real-Time Operating Systems the memory may not be freed when the program is terminated.
The OS executing your program usually does cleanup memory that is not freed explicitly and handles that are not closed explicitly, but this is not guaranteed by the C++ standard. You may find some embedded device that do not free up your memory leaks.
That being said Windows and all distros of Linux that I've ever seen do free up memory leaks.
You can easily create a huge loop of memory leaks though to test it out yourself. Watch your RAM usage grow and then close your program. You will see that the RAM usage goes back down.
Another consideration when using C++ is that if you aren't deleting your heap allocated memory then your destructors are also not being called. Sometimes you will have other side effects as well if your destructors aren't called.
Are you running on a desktop OS (Windows, Linux etc.)? If so, yes, in general the system will free any memory associated with the program when the program exits.
Usually, yes. Some systems support things like shared memory blocks that aren't automatically freed when a program exits though. Most still keep a reference count and delete it when all the programs that opened it exit, but a few don't (e.g., 16-bit Windows had a few types of items that would remain allocated even when nothing referred to them -- though it usually crashed for other reasons before enough of this accumulated to cause a problem...)
As far as I know, a modern operating system will free this memory once the program terminates.
Depends on what memory you leaked. Some memory can't be reclaimed by the OS. Most memory on most OSes however will be automatically reclaimed when the process exits.