I'm a .net programmer, without much experience with unmanaged code. I've been adding modifications and additions to an unmanaged project, and everything is functioning just fine. Can you give me some pointers as to what kind of code/objects I need to be concerned about in regard to garbage collection?
TIA
None. C++ doesn't have a garbage collector.
On C++ when you allocate memory manually using the new operator, its your job to release this memory later (when its no longer needed) using the delete operator.
What is the difference between new/delete and malloc/free?
If you have everything on the stack, or construct elements into containers such as vector then you won't have to worry about memory.
It is however likely you use at least some form of memory allocation (new/malloc/createobject/globalalloc/sysstring/...)
MSVC (COM) ATL provides managing 'RAII' types to help manage lifetime of objects
CComPtr<> will manage scope
CComQIPtr<> will also manage scope, but will also change to the specified type on assignment.
C++ has std::auto_ptr<> which is a bit old and is heading for deprecated
boost/tr1 has a bunch of scoped/shared types for managing ptr & arrays - usage depends on if you use new or new[] so that it can call the right delete or delete[]
You tagged this COM. If so, you are responsible for calling AddRef() and Release() as appropriate for any COM objects you use. They control the reference-counting features in COM, and are not related to the .NET garbage collector.
For your unmanaged objects, you are responsible for calling delete when you are done with them.
karlphillip give you good advice.
Moreover I want to add, that when you are using objects, best places to delete them is destructor of the class.
you must be careful, because when you delete something twice, your program will blow up.
There is a useful trick to detect whether object was just deleted.
after deleting them, you can set pointer to null
delete foo;
foo=null;
next time you can check whether it is equal to null, and in otherwise delete them. And the best thing... even if you will try delete null pointer, nothing will happens! :)
Figure out if the code is using smart pointers (it probably is), the smart pointers should destroy objects themselves when they go out of scope.
Related
I'm a c++ newbie, my code currently new's up on the heap in several places without calling delete. I know I need to do something about this.
My typical usage is where I new up a class instance in another classes member method then the method returns the pointer to the object.
If i change the return types from MyType* to std::tr1::shared_ptr will this fix my code to not leak memory?
Thanks a lot.
Edit:
Also likewise, I currently store new'ed up objects as MyType* as a value in a std:map. This map is a private member to a class instance. If I simply change this to std::tr1::shared_ptr will this clear up these when it's owner (class) falls out of scope?
Thanks again
It's a reasonable band-aid, sure.
A shared pointer is a reference-counted pointer. So as long as one or more shared_ptrs exist pointing to an object, that object will be kept alive. The problem occurs if you have circular references. Then the reference count will never reach 0, and the object(s) will never be deleted.
So shared_ptr * still* require you to understand what you're doing and think about object ownership, as you always have to do in C++. But it simplifies some otherwise complex scenarios, where determining ownership is hard.
But the real fix to your problem is to:
minimize how much you allocate with new. Can the object instead be stored on the stack? Can the object be rewritten as a RAII class, so that a small wrapper object is allocated on the stack (or elsewhere with automatic storage duration), and which, through its constructors and destructors, manages a heap-allocated memory resource? Then, as long as that object exists, its allocated memory will be preserved, and once it is destroyed, it will delete its allocated memory.
when you allocate objects with new, put them in one of the smart pointer classes. shared_ptr is popular because it is the one that comes closest to looking like a garbage collector, but it isn't, and if you treat it as one and use it as an excuse to not think about memory management, then it won't work. Understand all the smart pointer classes (scoped_ptr and auto_ptr in C++03, or unique_ptr replacing both in C++11, shared_ptr and weak_ptr), and use the one that best fits your scenario.
think about ownership. Any time you allocate memory, you need to determine an owner, whose lifetime will control the lifetime of the memory allocation. Think about how long a lifetime your allocation needs, and have another object (whose lifetime is automatically managed, probably because it is on the stack) delete your memory when its destructor is called.
There's no quick and easy fix. The way to handle memory management in C++ is to avoid memory management. Delegate it out to your objects. If you're calling delete in your own code, you're doing it wrong. Often, you don't even need new, but if you do, assign ownership to a smart pointer immediately, and let that call delete for you.
As a rule of thumb, unless you're a library writer, you shouldn't write either new or delete. You should virtually never use raw pointers, and only when it is absolutely necessary, use smart pointers. Let your classes do the heavy lifting. Don't be afraid to put them on the stack, pass them by value, and let them handle their resources internally.
If you are new to C++ there are a few points with pointer management you need to understand and accept, regardless of whether you're using shared_ptr or not.
It is more than likely in your use of C++ you will need to use new and assign its return pointer to a class pointer that you have declared. I believe it is advisable to take the time to understand what is going on there, even if you write a small test program and watch the constructor execute in the debugger.
If you use classes like std::string, its constructors and destructor will do string pointer management for you, but I believe it is a good idea to understand what is going on behind the scenes in that class, if nothing more than reading the documentation.
As another example, you cannot use some classes, without a lot of detailed reading of the API, or you'll get problems. I once worked at company that used a commercial class package years ago. Someone had written a multi-threaded program using this package's thread pool class.
The documentation clearly said you can't just exit with outstanding threads. Yet I saw where the author of the program did not bother to synch up and shutdown all threads on exit, and wound up throwing exceptions, when their program exited. And this was on a commercial financial product.
My suggestion is don't look to get saved from performing pointer management. There are std classes like string that can reduce your headaches, but nothing will prevent problems other than your own diligence and testing.
As long as you understand how tr1 shared pointers work, yes.
Look at Boost C++ shared_ptr<> also - it might be more what you want.
I'm writing a C++ destructor (I hope that's the right term; I'm new to C++) and I'm not positive on what exactly I need to garbage collect. Let's say I have 2 pointers as instance variables do I need to garbage collect them? What about if I have an object as an instance variable? Or a pointer to an object?
I'm just a little fuzzy on what exactly needs to be deleted and what is automatically cleaned up.
Thanks
General rule of thumb is... if you called new, call delete. If you called new[], call delete[]. If you're accessing these pointers outside of the class and effectively sharing them, you'll want to be careful about the "owning" object deleteing the shared objects while they're still in use. Garbage collection isn't quite the right term. You want to destroy the object and free its memory. This is what delete/delete[] does. new/new[] allocate memory and construct an object.
In C++, there is no garbage collector. You must "manually" handle it. That's not to say that it's all tedium. You'll probably get into using smart pointers to handle some of this logic for you. See this question for more information.
You must delete every pointer you allocate with new. It's that simple, and it's that complicated; you must not lose track of any pointer allocated by new until you have deleted it.
Also, you need to make sure that if you use new[] to allocate a pointer, you call delete[] to deallocate it.
It's not about what pointers you happen to have in a class instance. You need to know who owns them (the owner is the one responsible for deleting them). If your object owns those pointers, then it should delete them. If it doesn't own them, then it shouldn't.
This is also why experienced C++ programmers avoid naked pointers where possible. Smart pointers allow you to express ownership types semantically in the language. That way, you don't have to keep track of who owns what; you know who owns it by the type of smart pointer being used.
You must call delete on every space you created using new, delete[] on every area created using new[], and free on everything you got using malloc.
You should also close any sockets you opened, and clear up any other OS resources your class owns.
Note: this is not called garbage collection. Garbage collection is when this process happens automatically, as part of a library or language runtime, not when you do it explicitly.
You should start by learning about "Resource Acquisition is Initialization" (RAII) and smart pointers (shared_ptr and unique_ptr). This is the idiom you have to know in C++ if you come from other languages.
Usual practice says that whatever you allocated in your constructor must be deallocated in your destructor (see other answers to know how). Event better, try to use values as much as possible and new as less as possible.
C++ loves the stack, and stack allocation and deallocation are automatic and cheap (no new, no delete). Use references and const-references instead of pointers.
If you really need dynamic memory, try to use one of the smart pointers.
Any memory you allocate using new operator needs to be freed.
You allocate memory by doing:
int * p1 = new int[5];
p2 = new int;
and you delete it by doing:
delete[] p1
delete p2;
If you are playing with Classes, you need to do the same thing in constructors (allocate) and destructors (deallocate).
In an ideal world, nothing. There are smart pointers and containers for every pattern. Sometimes, you will have to write your own, or augment existing implementations, but much of what you need exists already.
For an array, start with std::array and std::vector. For objects, read up on smart pointers and shared pointers. As a generalization: if you need to call delete, delete[] or free, you have usually headed down the wrong path.
You need to garbage collect all pointers that you don't no longer need. Otherwise you would have the dangling pointer problem.
Additional thanks extend to Daniel Newby for answering my memory usage question (and Martin York for explaining it a bit more). It is definitely the answer I was looking for, but more of my other questions were answered by others.
Thanks everyone
for clearing up all of my concerns. Very pleased to see things running how I expect them to run.
I've run into something that I'm not exactly sure about.
In my program, I'm not using malloc() or free(). I'm making instances of my classes with new and I've made sure each one runs it's destructor when it's delete'd, however, there are no free() calls or even setting their pointers (to things inside a global scope, or other classes) to NULL or 0.
What I mean by "I've made sure", is not that I call each destructor. I only use delete to call on the destructor to run, but I have variables that increase by 1 everytime an object is created, and everytime it's destructor is run. This is how I've made sure the amount of objects I created are equal to the amount of destructors called.
Should I be using malloc() and free() anyway? Should I be NULLing pointers to things that I still want to exist?
A second question is why, when I look at my task manager, does my process never "drop" memory? It used to never stop gaining, and then I started deleting everything properly. Or so I thought.
Wouldn't free() or delete make the memory usage go down?
What practices should I pursue about malloc'ing and free'ing memory with linked lists?
There's rarely a reason to use malloc() and free() in a C++ program. Stick with new and delete. Note that unlike languages with garbage collection, setting a pointer to NULL or 0 in C++ has nothing to do with deallocating the memory.
you should be using delete with a new and free with a malloc. delete will call the class' destructor so you don't have to explicitly call it. The purpose of the destructor is to release and resources the class might have and delete will free the memory as well.
The only time you should explicetly use the destructor is when you have initialized your object through placement new. You should put yourself in a position where the compiler generated code releases your resources -- read this article on the C++ idiom : resource acquisition is initialization.
Also setting the pointer of a class to null does nothing, there is no garbage collector in the background cleaning up your memory. If you don't free dynamic memory in C++ it will be "leaked" memory -- i.e., there are no links to the memory and it will never be reclaimed till the process exits.
p.s., once again do not mix the pairs of the memory allocation functions.
edt: don't implement linked lists, use the containers provided by the Standard template library. If you feel you need better performance use the intrusive containers from boost.
You should use new and delete in preference to malloc()/calloc()/realloc() and free().
If you're creating linked lists you should use std::list. Also, look into std::vector
As far as the apparent memory usage of your application: it's quite likely that memory is not returned to the system until the application exits.
new and delete can more or less to be considered the C++ versions of malloc and free. So stick within one pair or another, i.e. if a pointer was created with new, it should be released with delete, which ensures the destructor call you mentioned. The malloc/free pair are not C++ aware, and just allocate and release a block of memory with no attached constructor/destructor semantics.
Yes indeed I consider it good form to set pointers to NULL or zero when they've been freed or deleted. During debugging I also sometimes set them to something characteristic like 0xdeadbeef so they stand out.
It's likely that the OS "memory usage" is reflecting the entire size of your process' heap, rather than your memory manager's idea of how much memory is allocated. When the allocator discovers that it doesn't have enough heap space, it grows the heap, and this will be reflected in the "memory usage" you're looking at. In theory it would be possible to shrink the heap accordingly on memory release, but this doesn't always happen. Thus you may only see the memory usage grow, and never shrink.
"Should I be using malloc() and free() anyway?"
No, in most cases. Stick with one form of memory management only. Trying to use both means that you will inevitably screw up and delete a malloc()ed item, or free() a newed item, giving a subtle bug. Stick with one form and you fix these bugs in advance.
"Wouldn't free() or delete make the memory usage go down?"
The OS allocates memory in pages, often 4 kiB in size. As long as a single byte of the page is still in use, it will not be returned to the OS. You are probably allocating many small items, but not deallocating all of them. (There are ways to help with a custom new/delete, but they are generally not worth the effort.)
In my program, I'm not using malloc()or free(). I'm making instances of my classes with new and I've made sure each one runs it's destructor when it's delete'd,
That is scary. You should not need to make anything run its destructor. It is allocated (new) it is destroyed (delete) the constructor is run atomatically on new and the destructor is run automatically on delete.
however, there are no free() calls or even setting their pointers (to things inside a global scope, or other classes) to NULL or 0.
There is no need to use malloc/free in C++ code (there are a few situations where you are using C libs that require malloced memory but they are explicitly documented and few).
Technically there is no need to set a pointer to NULL after you delete it.
It is good technique for a variable to go out of scope just after it is deleted so it can not accidently be re-used. If for some reason the pointer variable lives (ie does not go out of scope) for a long time after you call delete then it is usefull to set it to NULL so that it is no accidently re-used.
Should I be using malloc() and free() anyway? Should I be NULLing pointers to things that I still want to exist?
No and No.
Note: C++ unlike Java does not keep track of how many pointers point at an object.
If you have more than one pointer pointing at an object you need to use smart pointers (you should be using smart pointers anyway).
A second question is why, when I look at my task manager, does my process never "drop" memory? It used to never stop gaining, and then I started deleting everything properly. Or so I thought.
The application never releases back to the OS (on most OS's in normal situations).
So the memory will never go down (until the application exits).
Internally the memory management tracks all the frees so that the memory can be re-used.
But if it runs out it will ask the OS for more and thus in the task manager the memory allocation will go up (this will not be returned to the OS).
Wouldn't free() or delete make the memory usage go down?
No.
What practices should I pursue about malloc'ing and free'ing memory with linked lists?
You should use Smart Pointers so you don't need to worry about when to delete an object.
They also make your code exception safe.
But if you using pointers. call delete to remove an element then set is value to NULL (the pointer scope is alive long after the delete is called).
Note: A boost:shared_pointer is very similar to a Java pointer. It tracks the number of pointers and deletes the object when the last reference to the object is destroyed. No need for you to do any deleting (just like Java) and all you actually need to do is call new (just like Java).
I am pretty proficient with C, and freeing memory in C is a must.
However, I'm starting my first C++ project, and I've heard some things about how you don't need to free memory, by using shared pointers and other things.
Where should I read about this? Is this a valuable replacement for proper delete C++ functionality? How does it work?
EDIT
I'm confused, some people are saying that I should allocate using new and use smart pointers for the deallocation process.
Other people are saying that I shouldn't allocate dynamic memory in the first place.
Others are saying that if I use new I also have to use delete just like C.
So which method is considered more standard and more-often used?
Where should I read about this?
Herb Sutter's Exceptional C++ and Scott Meyers's More Effective C++ are both excellent books that cover the subject in detail.
There is also a lot of discussion on the web (Google or StackOverflow searches for "RAII" or "smart pointer" will no doubt yield many good results).
Is this a valuable replacement for proper delete C++ functionality?
Absolutely. The ability not to worry about cleaning up resources, especially when an exception is thrown, is one of the most valuable aspects of using RAII and smart pointers.
What I meant in my comment (sorry for being terse - I had to run out to the shops) is that you should be using:
std::string s = "foobar";
rather than:
std::string * s = new std::string( "foobar" );
...
delete s;
and:
vector <Person> p;
p.push_back( Person( "fred" ) );
rather than:
vector <Person *> p;
p.push_back( new Person( "fred" ) );
You should always be using classes that manage memory for you. In C++ the main reason for creating an object using new is that you don't know its type at compile-time. If that isn't the reason, think long and hard before using new and delete, or even smart pointers.
If you allocate dynamic memory (with new), you need to free it (with delete), just like using malloc/free in C. The power of C++ is that it gives you lots of ways of NOT calling new, in which case you don't need to call delete.
You still have to worry about freeing memory in C++, it's just that there are better methods/tools for doing so. One can argue that attention to memory management in C++ is more difficult as well due to the added requirement of writing exception safe code. This makes things such as:
MyClass *y = new MyClass;
doSomething(y);
delete y;
Look completely harmless until you find that doSomething() throws an exception and now you have a memory leak. This becomes even more dangerous as code is maintained as the code above could have been safe prior to someone changing the doSomething() function in a later release.
Following the RAII methodology is a big part of fixing memory management challenges and using auto_ptr's or shared pointers provided by libraries such as Boost make it easier to incorporate these methods into your code.
Note that auto_ptr is not a "shared" pointer. It is an object that takes ownership of the dynamically allocated object and gives that ownership away on assignment and copy. It doesn't count references to the memory. This makes it unsuitable for use within standard containers and many in general prefer the shared_ptr of Boost to the auto_ptr provided by the standard.
It is never safe to put auto_ptrs into
standard containers. Some people will
tell you that their compiler and
library compiles this fine, and others
will tell you that they've seen
exactly this example recommended in
the documentation of a certain popular
compiler; don't listen to them.
The problem is that auto_ptr does not
quite meet the requirements of a type
you can put into containers, because
copies of auto_ptrs are not
equivalent. For one thing, there's
nothing that says a vector can't just
decide to up and make an "extra"
internal copy of some object it
contains. For another, when you call
generic functions that will copy
elements, like sort() does, the
functions have to be able to assume
that copies are going to be
equivalent. At least one popular sort
internally takes a copy of a "pivot"
element, and if you try to make it
work on auto_ptrs it will merrily take
a copy of the pivot auto_ptr object
(thereby taking ownership and putting
it in a temporary auto_ptr on the
side), do the rest of its work on the
sequence (including taking further
copies of the now-non-owning auto_ptr
that was picked as a pivot value), and
when the sort is over the pivot is
destroyed and you have a problem: At
least one auto_ptr in the sequence
(the one that was the pivot value) no
longer owns the pointer it once held,
and in fact the pointer it held has
already been deleted!
Taken From: Using auto_ptr Effectively
Well, of course you need to delete. I would rephrase this as 'what libraries can I use that can automate the deletion of allocated memory?'. I'd recommend you start by reading up the Boost Smart pointers page.
The best answer I can give you is: something needs to call delete for each object created with new. Whether you do it manually, or using a scope-based smart pointer, or a reference-counted smart pointer, or even a non-deterministic garbage collector, it still needs to be done.
Having said that, I have not manually called delete in 10 years or so. Whenever I can I create an automatic object (on the stack); when I need to create an object on the heap for some reason I try using a scope-based smart pointer, and in rare cases when there is a legitimate reason to have shared ownership, I use a reference counted smart pointer.
This is a great question, and actually several in one:
Do I need to worry about Managing Memory?
Yes! There is no garbage collection in C++. Anytime you allocate something with new you need to either call delete in your own code, or delegate that responsibility to something like a smart pointer.
When Should I use dynamic memory allocation?
The reasons you'd want to use dynamic memory allocation (allocating with new). Some of these include:
You don't know the size of the thing you are allocating at compile time
You don't know the type of the thing you are allocating at compile time
You are reusing the same data in different contexts and don't want to pay the performance overhead of copying that data around.
There are lots of other reasons, and these are gross over generalizations, but you get the idea.
What tools can I use to help me with memory management?
Smart pointers are the way to go here. A smart pointer will take ownership of memory that you allocate, and then release that memory automatically for you at a specific time depending on the policy the smart pointer.
For example, a boost::scoped_ptr will deallocate memory for you when it goes out of scope
{
scoped_ptr<MyClass> myVar( new MyClass() );
// do Something with myVar
} // myVar goes out of scope and calls delete on its MyClass
In general you should use smart pointers over raw pointers anytime you can. It will save you years of tracking down memory leaks.
Smart pointers come in many forms including:
std::auto_ptr
Boost Smart Pointers
If you can use Boost smart pointers I would. They rock!
Since C++ does not have a garbage collector built into the language, you need to be aware of what memory you have dynamically allocated and how that memory is being freed.
That said, you can use smart pointers to alleviate the problem of having to manually free memory via delete - for example, see Smart Ponters (boost).
First and foremost, before you get into the business of using auto_ptr's and writing your own RAII classes, learn to use the Standard Template Library. It provides many common container classes that automatically allocate their internal memory when you instantiate them and free it up when they go out of scope - things like vectors, lists, maps, and so forth. When you employ STL, using the new-operator and delete (or malloc and free) is rarely necessary.
Freeing memory in C++ is just as much a must as in C.
What you may be thinking of is a smart pointer library (the standard library's auto_ptr among others) - which will do reference counting for you.
'm confused, some people are saying
that I should allocate using new and
use smart pointers for the
deallocation process.
They're right. Just like in C you still need to manage all your memory one way or another. however there are ways to use the language to automate delete.
Smart pointers are basically local scope wrappers for pointers which use the object .dtor to delete the corresponding pointer once the smart pointer - which is like any other objecton the stack - goes out of scope
The beauty of C++ is that you have explicit control over when things are created and when things are destroyed. Do it right and you will not have issues with memory leaks etc.
Depending on your environment, you may want to create objects on the stack or you may want to dynamically allocated (create them on the 'heap' - heap in quotes because its an overused term but is good enough for now).
Foo x; // created on the stack - automatically destroyed when the program exits that block of code it was created in.
Foo *y = new Foo; // created on the heap - its O.K. to pass this one around since you control when its destroyed
Whenever you use 'new', you should use the corresponding version of delete... somewhere, somehow. If you use new to initialize a smart pointer like:
std::auto_ptr x = new Foo;
You are actually creating two items. An instance of auto_ptr and an instance of Foo. auto_ptr is created on the stack, Foo on the heap.
When the stack 'unwinds', it will automatically call delete on that instance of Foo. Automatically cleaning it up for you.
So, general rule of thumb, use the stack version whenever possible/practical. In most instances it will be faster as well.
In order of preference, you should:
Avoid handling allocation yourself at all. C++'s STL (standard template library) comes with a lot of containers that handle allocation for you. Use vector instead of dynamically allocated arrays. Use string instead of char * for arrays of characters. Try to seek out an appropriate container from the STL rather than designing your own.
If you are designing your own class and honestly need dynamic allocation (and you usually won't if you compose your class using members of the STL), place all instances of new (new[]) in your constructor and all instances of delete (delete[]) in your destructor. You shouldn't need malloc and free, generally.
If you are unable to keep your allocations paired within constructors and destructors, use smart pointers. Really this is not so different from #2; smart pointers are basically just special classes which use destructors to ensure deallocation happens.
I was recently interviewing for a C++ position, and I was asked how I guard against creating memory leaks. I know I didn't give a satisfactory answer to that question, so I'm throwing it to you guys. What are the best ways to guard against memory leaks?
Thanks!
What all the answers given so far boil down to is this: avoid having to call delete.
Any time the programmer has to call delete, you have a potential memory leak.
Instead, make the delete call happen automatically. C++ guarantees that local objects have their destructors called when they go out of scope. Use that guarantee to ensure your memory allocations are automatically deleted.
At its most general, this technique means that every memory allocation should be wrapped inside a simple class, whose constructor allocates the necessary memory, and destructor releases it.
Because this is such a commonly-used and widely applicable technique, smart pointer classes have been created that reduce the amount of boilerplate code. Rather than allocating memory, their constructors take a pointer to the memory allocation already made, and stores that. When the smart pointer goes out of scope, it is able to delete the allocation.
Of course, depending on usage, different semantics may be called for. Do you just need the simple case, where the allocation should last exactly as long as the wrapper class lives? Then use boost::scoped_ptr or, if you can't use boost, std::auto_ptr. Do you have an unknown number of objects referencing the allocation with no knowledge of how long each of them will live? Then the reference-counted boost::shared_ptr is a good solution.
But you don't have to use smart pointers. The standard library containers do the trick too. They internally allocate the memory required to store copies of the objects you put into them, and they release the memory again when they're deleted. So the user doesn't have to call either new or delete.
There are countless variations of this technique, changing whose responsibility it is to create the initial memory allocation, or when the deallocation should be performed.
But what they all have in common is the answer to your question: The RAII idiom: Resource Acquisition Is Initialization. Memory allocations are a kind of resource. Resources should be acquired when an object is initialized, and released by the object itslef, when it is destroyed.
Make the C++ scope and lifetime rules do your work for you. Never ever call delete outside of a RAII object, whether it is a container class, a smart pointer or some ad-hoc wrapper for a single allocation. Let the object handle the resource assigned to it.
If all delete calls happen automatically, there's no way you can forget them. And then there's no way you can leak memory.
Don't allocate memory on the heap if you don't need to. Most work can be done on the stack, so you should only do heap memory allocations when you absolutely need to.
If you need a heap-allocated object that is owned by a single other object then use std::auto_ptr.
Use standard containers, or containers from Boost instead of inventing your own.
If you have an object that is referred to by several other objects and is owned by no single one in particular then use either std::tr1::shared_ptr or std::tr1::weak_ptr -- whichever suits your use case.
If none of these things match your use case then maybe use delete. If you do end up having to manually manage memory then just use memory leak detection tools to make sure that you aren't leaking anything (and of course, just be careful). You shouldn't ever really get to this point though.
You'd do well to read up on RAII.
replace new with shared_ptr's. Basically RAII. make code exception safe. Use the stl everywhere possible. If you use reference counting pointers make sure that they don't form cycles. SCOPED_EXIT from boost is also very useful.
(Easy) Never ever let a raw pointer own a object (search your code for the regexp "\= *new". Use shared_ptr or scoped_ptr instead, or even better, use real variables instead of pointers as often as you can.
(Hard) Make sure you don't have any circular references, with shared_ptrs pointing to each other, use weak_ptr to break them.
Done!
Use all kind of smart pointers.
Use certain strategy for creation and deletion of objects, like who creates that is responsible for delete.
make sure that you understand exactly how an object will be deleted everytime you create one
make sure you understand who owns the pointer every time one is returned to you
make sure your error paths dispose of objects you have created appropriately
be paranoid about the above
In addition to the advice about RAII, remember to make your base class destructor virtual if there are any virtual functions.
To avoid memory leaks, what you must do is to have a clear and definite notion of who is responsible for deleting any dynamically allocated object.
C++ allows construction of objects on the stack (i.e. as kind-of local variables). This binds creation and destruction the the control flow: an objects is created when program execution reaches its declaration, and the object is destroyed when execution escapes the block in which that declaration was made. Whenever allocation need matches that pattern, then use it. This will save you much of the trouble.
For other usages, if you can define and document a clear notion of responsibility, then this may work fine. For instance, you have a method or a function which returns a pointer to a newly allocated object, and you document that the caller becomes responsible for ultimately deleting that instance. Clear documentation coupled with good programmer discipline (something which is not easily achieved !) can solve many remaining problems of memory management.
In some situations, including undisciplined programmers and complex data structures, you may have to resort to more advanced techniques, such as reference counting. Each object is awarded a "counter" which is the number of other variables which point to it. Whenever a piece of code decides to no longer point to the object, the counter is decreased. When the counter reaches zero, the object is deleted. Reference counting requires strict counter handling. This can be done with so-called "smart pointers": these are object which are functionally pointers, but which automatically adjust the counter upon their own creation and destruction.
Reference counting works quite good in many situations, but they cannot handle cyclic structures. So for the most complex situations, you have to resort to the heavy artillery, i.e. a garbage collector. The one I link to is the GC for C and C++ written by Hans Boehm, and it has been used in some rather big projects (e.g. Inkscape). The point of a garbage collector is to maintain a global view on the complete memory space, to know whether a given instance is still in use or not. This is the right tool when local-view tools, such as reference counting, are not enough. One could argue that, at that point, one should ask oneself whether C++ is the right language for the problem at hand. Garbage collection works best when the language is cooperative (this unlocks a host of optimizations which are not doable when the compiler is unaware of what happens with memory, as a typical C or C++ compiler).
Note that none of the techniques described above allows the programmer to stop thinking. Even a GC can suffer from memory leaks, because it uses reachability as an approximation of future usage (there are theoretical reasons which imply that it is not possible, in full generality, to accurately detect all objects which will not be used thereafter). You may still have to set some fields to NULL to inform the GC that you will no longer access an object through a given variable.
I start by reading the following: https://stackoverflow.com/search?q=%5Bc%2B%2B%5D+memory+leak
A very good way is using Smart Pointers, the boost/tr1::shared_ptr. The memory will be free'd, once the (stack allocated) smart pointer goes out of scope.
You can use the utility.
If you work on Linux - use valgrid (it's free).
Use deleaker on Windows.
Smart pointers.
Memory management.
Override 'new' and 'delete' or use your own macros/templates.
On x86 you can regularly use Valgrind to check your code