If it is known that an application leaks memory (when executed), what are the various ways to locate such memory leak bugs in the source code of the application.
I know of certain parsers/tools (which probably do static analysis of the code) which can be used here but are there any other ways/techniques to do that, specific to the language (C/C++)/platform?
compile Your code with -g flag
Download valgrind (if You work on Linux) an run it with --leak-check=yes option
I thinkt that valgrind is the best tool for this task.
For Windows: See this topic: Is there a good Valgrind substitute for Windows?
There's valgrind and probably other great tools out there.
But I'll tell you what I do, that works very well for me, given that many times I code in environments where you can't run valgrind:
Be sure to pair each allocation with a deallocation. I always count news or mallocs and search for the delete or free.
If in C++ and using exceptions, try to put them paired on constructors/destructors. If you like risk, or can't put them in Ctor/dtor, be sure no exception can make the program flow not to execute the deallocation.
Use of smart pointers and ptr containers.
One can monitor alloc/dealloc rewriting new or installing a malloc handler. At some point, if the code runs continuously it can be obvious if the memory usage becomes stationary and doesn't grow without bounds which would be the worst case of leak.
Be careful with containers that never shrink such as vectors. There are tricks to shrink them swapping them with an empty container.
There are two general techniques for memory leak detection, dynamic and static analysis.
In dynamic analysis, you run the code and a tool analyzes the run to see what memory has leaked at the end. Dynamic analysis tends to be highly accurate but will only correctly analyze that specific executions you do within your tool. So, if some of your leaks that only happens for certain input and you don't have a test that uses that input, dynamic analysis will not detect those leaks.
Static analysis analyzes the source code to create all possible code paths and see if a leak can occur in any of them. While static analysis is pretty good right now, it's not perfect - you can not only get false negatives (the analysis misses leaks), you can also get false positives (the tool claims you have a leak when there actually isn't one).
There are many dynamic analysis tools including such well known tools as Valgrind (open source but limited to x86 Linux and Mac) and Purify (commercial but also available for Windows, Solaris and AIX). Wikipedia has a decent list of some other dynamic analysis tools as well.
On the static analysis side, the only tool I've thought worthwhile is Coverity (commerical). Once again, Wikipedia has a list of many other static analysis tools.
Purify will do a seemingly miraculous job of doing this
Not only memory leaks, but many other kinds of memory errors.
It works by instrumenting your machine code in real time, so you don't need source or need to compile with any particular options.
Just instrument your code with Purify (simplest way to do this: CC="purify cc" make), run your program, and get a nice gui that will show your leaks and other errors.
Available for Windows, Linux, and various flavors of Unix. There's a free trial download available.
http://www.ibm.com/software/awdtools/purify
If you utilize smart pointers and keep a table of them, then you can analyze it to tell what memory you are still using. Either provide a window to view it, or more commonly, stream to a log before the program terminates.
As far as doing it manually is concerned I don't think there are any established practices. To go over the code with a fine-toothed comb, looking for news (allocs) without corresponding deletes (frees), is all that is there to it.
You can also use purify for detection of memory leak.
There aren't very many general purpose guidelines for finding memory leaks. Fortunately, there's one simple guideline for preventing most leaks, both of memory and of other resources: use RAII (Resource Acquisition Is Initialization), and they just won't happen to start with. The name is a lousy description, but if you Google on it, you should get quite a few useful hits.
Personally, I would recommend that you wrap all variables which you need to allocate/deallocate memory with the clone_ptrclass which performs all the deallocation of memory for you when it is no longer needed. Thus, you do not have to use delete. It is quite similar to auto_ptr. The major difference is that you do not have to deal with the tricky ownership transfer part. More information and code on clone_ptr can be found here.
Related
I am authoring a C++ program and find it consumes too much memory. I would like to know which part of the program consumes the most number of memory, ideally, I would like to know how much percentage of memory are consumed by what kind of C++ objects the program is using at a particular moment.
In Java, I know tools like Eclipse Memory Analyzer (https://www.eclipse.org/mat/) which could take a heap dump and show/visualize such memory usage, and I wonder if this can be done for a C++ program. For example, I expect to use a tool/approach letting me know a particular vector<shared_ptr<MyObject>> is holding 30% of the memory.
Note:
I develop the program mainly on macOS (compile using Apple Clang), so it will be better if the approach works on macOS. But I do deploy to Linux as well (compile using gcc) so approaches/tools on Linux is okay.
I tried using Apple's Intruments for such purpose, but so far I can only use it to find memory allocation issue. I have no idea how to figure out the memory consumption of the program at a particular moment (the memory consumption should be related with C++ objects in the program so that I can do some action to reduce it accordingly).
I don't find an easy way to visualize/summarize each part of my program's memory yet. So far, the best tool/approach that I found is Apple's Instruments (if you are on macOS).
By using Instruments, you can use Allocations profiling template. When using this profiling template, you can choose File ==> Recording Options ==> Check Discard events for freed memory option
And you will be able to figure out the un-free memory (aka. the data that are still in the memory) during allocation recording. If you have your program's debug symbol loaded, you can see which function leads to this result.
Although this doesn't address all the issues, it does help to identify part of the problem.
Can heap memory leaks detection be built in a C/C++ compiler? For example, in it's simplest form, during semantic analysis it would simply count allocated memory segments (with new/malloc or whatever) and delete/free calls for each one. Then give a compile-time warning about it.
See the C++ Core Guidelines which is a tool that parses the code to find deviations from the GSL standard. This standard has statically enforceable coding rules that preclude the possibility of Memory Leaks.
https://isocpp.org/blog/2015/09/bjarne-stroustrup-announces-cpp-core-guidelines
Well, probably you can try to make it, but you should take an account of the following things:
You should build your application in the whole program mode (in other cases you can catch only very trivial things).
You should make a very complex data flow analysis for pointers - just imagine that you allocated memory for some object and than assigned this pointer to another. And you free only one of them in any place of a program. Or you can put this pointer into some container.
There can be hundreds thousands of pointers in a big application. So the analysis need a lot of memory and time. Much more than a user wants to spend.
If you make quite a cheap and quick analysis it will be inaccurate. So you will have to print a lot of false-positive warnings or only exact warnings but for most simple things
So as a an academic research that probably will be very interesting but in real live I doubt it is possible to make such analysis of satisfying quality.
Well, there are the clang (LLVM) sanitizers. They're not compile-time, but add runtime instrumentation to the emitted program.
In general, it's not possible to do a good job entirely statically, for code whose behaviour depends on inputs. Standalone static analysis tools have some heuristics for tracing various code paths, which is already sort-of dynamic-ish.
Just instrumenting the code and running it (or emulating like valgrind) is conceptually simpler, although of course it does slow down execution.
Our CheckPointer tool instruments MS or GCC C programs to find a wide variety of pointer management errors that occur at runtime.
It detects dangling pointers, pointers that step outside the language-defined memory region for which they originated, including pointers to areas inside the stack (these are issues that Valgrind cannot find because it believes the entire stack is a valid place for a pointer to reference). It also handles thread-local storage.
It reports an error at the earliest time that such an error could be reported, which makes finding the cause considerably simpler.
At the end of a run, it produces a list of allocated but not freed blocks of storage to help track down memory leaks.
We have a big multi-threaded C++ application running on Linux. We see that occupied by the application memory grows fast and believe there are some leaks. We have tried every tool we have (valgrind, DynLeak, Purify) but did not find anything. Since this application can run on Windows, we have also tried Bounds Checker. Did not help, too.
We need a new tool that can help. I've looked at Google Perfomrance Tools, MMGR by Paul Nettle, MemCheck Deluxe. None of them impressed me.
Is there anywhere a good tool for this task?
The definition of a memory leak in C/C++ is very specific: it is memory that has been allocated and then the pointer was overwritten or otherwise lost. Valgrind generally detects such cases out of the box, but things are not always that simple.
Your application could very well be still using that memory. In that case you might have what a Java programmer would consider a leak, e.g. entering data in a structure and rarely (or never) removing entries.
You might be measuring the memory usage of your memory incorrectly. On Linux memory usage measurements are not as straight-forward as they seem. How have you measured your memory usage?
You should consider using the application hooks (Valgrind calls them client requests) of whatever memory analysis tool your are using, to avoid the issue with reports only being issued at program termination. Using those hooks might help you pin-point the location of your leak.
You should try using a heap profiler, such as massif from Valgrind, to look for memory allocation locations with inordinate amounts of allocated memory.
Make sure you are not using a custom allocator or garbage collector in your application. As far as I know, no memory analysis tool will work with a custom allocator without user interference.
If your memory leak is massive enough to be detectable within an acceptable amount of application run-time, you could try a binary search of old revisions through your version control system to identify the commit that introduced the problem. At least Mercurial
and Git offer built-in support for this task.
If by "did not help" you mean it did not report memory leaks, it is quite possible you don't have one and just use more and more memory that is still referenced by pointers and can be deleted.
To help you debug the problem, perhaps in your logging, you should also write memory size, number of objects (their type) and a few other stats which are useful to you. At least until you become more familiar with the tools you mentioned.
I am debugging a (native) multi-threaded C++ application under Visual Studio 2008. On seemingly random occasions, I get a "Windows has triggered a break point..." error with a note that this might be due to a corruption in the heap. These errors won't always crash the application right away, although it is likely to crash short after.
The big problem with these errors is that they pop up only after the corruption has actually taken place, which makes them very hard to track and debug, especially on a multi-threaded application.
What sort of things can cause these errors?
How do I debug them?
Tips, tools, methods, enlightments... are welcome.
Application Verifier combined with Debugging Tools for Windows is an amazing setup. You can get both as a part of the Windows Driver Kit or the lighter Windows SDK. (Found out about Application Verifier when researching an earlier question about a heap corruption issue.) I've used BoundsChecker and Insure++ (mentioned in other answers) in the past too, although I was surprised how much functionality was in Application Verifier.
Electric Fence (aka "efence"), dmalloc, valgrind, and so forth are all worth mentioning, but most of these are much easier to get running under *nix than Windows. Valgrind is ridiculously flexible: I've debugged large server software with many heap issues using it.
When all else fails, you can provide your own global operator new/delete and malloc/calloc/realloc overloads -- how to do so will vary a bit depending on compiler and platform -- and this will be a bit of an investment -- but it may pay off over the long run. The desirable feature list should look familiar from dmalloc and electricfence, and the surprisingly excellent book Writing Solid Code:
sentry values: allow a little more space before and after each alloc, respecting maximum alignment requirement; fill with magic numbers (helps catch buffer overflows and underflows, and the occasional "wild" pointer)
alloc fill: fill new allocations with a magic non-0 value -- Visual C++ will already do this for you in Debug builds (helps catch use of uninitialized vars)
free fill: fill in freed memory with a magic non-0 value, designed to trigger a segfault if it's dereferenced in most cases (helps catch dangling pointers)
delayed free: don't return freed memory to the heap for a while, keep it free filled but not available (helps catch more dangling pointers, catches proximate double-frees)
tracking: being able to record where an allocation was made can sometimes be useful
Note that in our local homebrew system (for an embedded target) we keep the tracking separate from most of the other stuff, because the run-time overhead is much higher.
If you're interested in more reasons to overload these allocation functions/operators, take a look at my answer to "Any reason to overload global operator new and delete?"; shameless self-promotion aside, it lists other techniques that are helpful in tracking heap corruption errors, as well as other applicable tools.
Because I keep finding my own answer here when searching for alloc/free/fence values MS uses, here's another answer that covers Microsoft dbgheap fill values.
You can detect a lot of heap corruption problems by enabling Page Heap for your application . To do this you need to use gflags.exe that comes as a part of Debugging Tools For Windows
Run Gflags.exe and in the Image file options for your executable, check "Enable Page Heap" option.
Now restart your exe and attach to a debugger. With Page Heap enabled, the application will break into debugger whenever any heap corruption occurs.
To really slow things down and perform a lot of runtime checking, try adding the following at the top of your main() or equivalent in Microsoft Visual Studio C++
_CrtSetDbgFlag(_CRTDBG_ALLOC_MEM_DF | _CRTDBG_LEAK_CHECK_DF | _CRTDBG_CHECK_ALWAYS_DF );
A very relevant article is Debugging Heap corruption with Application Verifier and Debugdiag.
What sort of things can cause these errors?
Doing naughty things with memory, e.g. writing after the end of a buffer, or writing to a buffer after it's been freed back to the heap.
How do I debug them?
Use an instrument which adds automated bounds-checking to your executable: i.e. valgrind on Unix, or a tool like BoundsChecker (Wikipedia suggests also Purify and Insure++) on Windows.
Beware that these will slow your application, so they may be unusable if yours is a soft-real-time application.
Another possible debugging aid/tool might be MicroQuill's HeapAgent.
One quick tip, that I got from Detecting access to freed memory is this:
If you want to locate the error
quickly, without checking every
statement that accesses the memory
block, you can set the memory pointer
to an invalid value after freeing the
block:
#ifdef _DEBUG // detect the access to freed memory
#undef free
#define free(p) _free_dbg(p, _NORMAL_BLOCK); *(int*)&p = 0x666;
#endif
The best tool I found useful and worked every time is code review (with good code reviewers).
Other than code review, I'd first try Page Heap. Page Heap takes a few seconds to set up and with luck it might pinpoint your problem.
If no luck with Page Heap, download Debugging Tools for Windows from Microsoft and learn to use the WinDbg. Sorry couldn't give you more specific help, but debuging multi-threaded heap corruption is more an art than science. Google for "WinDbg heap corruption" and you should find many articles on the subject.
What type of allocation functions are you using? I recently hit a similar error using the Heap* style allocation functions.
It turned out that I was mistakenly creating the heap with the HEAP_NO_SERIALIZE option. This essentially makes the Heap functions run without thread safety. It's a performance improvement if used properly but shouldn't ever be used if you are using HeapAlloc in a multi-threaded program [1]. I only mention this because your post mentions you have a multi-threaded app. If you are using HEAP_NO_SERIALIZE anywhere, delete that and it will likely fix your problem.
[1] There are certain situations where this is legal, but it requires you to serialize calls to Heap* and is typically not the case for multi-threaded programs.
If these errors occur randomly, there is high probability that you encountered data-races. Please, check: do you modify shared memory pointers from different threads? Intel Thread Checker may help to detect such issues in multithreaded program.
You may also want to check to see whether you're linking against the dynamic or static C runtime library. If your DLL files are linking against the static C runtime library, then the DLL files have separate heaps.
Hence, if you were to create an object in one DLL and try to free it in another DLL, you would get the same message you're seeing above. This problem is referenced in another Stack Overflow question, Freeing memory allocated in a different DLL.
In addition to looking for tools, consider looking for a likely culprit. Is there any component you're using, perhaps not written by you, which may not have been designed and tested to run in a multithreaded environment? Or simply one which you do not know has run in such an environment.
The last time it happened to me, it was a native package which had been successfully used from batch jobs for years. But it was the first time at this company that it had been used from a .NET web service (which is multithreaded). That was it - they had lied about the code being thread safe.
You can use VC CRT Heap-Check macros for _CrtSetDbgFlag: _CRTDBG_CHECK_ALWAYS_DF or _CRTDBG_CHECK_EVERY_16_DF.._CRTDBG_CHECK_EVERY_1024_DF.
I'd like to add my experience. In the last few days, I solved an instance of this error in my application. In my particular case, the errors in the code were:
Removing elements from an STL collection while iterating over it (I believe there are debug flags in Visual Studio to catch these things; I caught it during code review)
This one is more complex, I'll divide it in steps:
From a native C++ thread, call back into managed code
In managed land, call Control.Invoke and dispose a managed object which wraps the native object to which the callback belongs.
Since the object is still alive inside the native thread (it will remain blocked in the callback call until Control.Invoke ends). I should clarify that I use boost::thread, so I use a member function as the thread function.
Solution: Use Control.BeginInvoke (my GUI is made with Winforms) instead so that the native thread can end before the object is destroyed (the callback's purpose is precisely notifying that the thread ended and the object can be destroyed).
I had a similar problem - and it popped up quite randomly. Perhaps something was corrupt in the build files, but I ended up fixing it by cleaning the project first then rebuilding.
So in addition to the other responses given:
What sort of things can cause these errors?
Something corrupt in the build file.
How do I debug them?
Cleaning the project and rebuilding. If it's fixed, this was likely the problem.
I have also faced this issue. In my case, I allocated for x size memory and appended the data for x+n size. So, when freeing it shown heap overflow. Just make sure your allocated memory sufficient and check for how many bytes added in the memory.
I'm working on a multithreaded C++ application that is corrupting the heap. The usual tools to locate this corruption seem to be inapplicable. Old builds (18 months old) of the source code exhibit the same behaviour as the most recent release, so this has been around for a long time and just wasn't noticed; on the downside, source deltas can't be used to identify when the bug was introduced - there are a lot of code changes in the repository.
The prompt for crashing behaviuor is to generate throughput in this system - socket transfer of data which is munged into an internal representation. I have a set of test data that will periodically cause the app to exception (various places, various causes - including heap alloc failing, thus: heap corruption).
The behaviour seems related to CPU power or memory bandwidth; the more of each the machine has, the easier it is to crash. Disabling a hyper-threading core or a dual-core core reduces the rate of (but does not eliminate) corruption. This suggests a timing related issue.
Now here's the rub:
When it's run under a lightweight debug environment (say Visual Studio 98 / AKA MSVC6) the heap corruption is reasonably easy to reproduce - ten or fifteen minutes pass before something fails horrendously and exceptions, like an alloc; when running under a sophisticated debug environment (Rational Purify, VS2008/MSVC9 or even Microsoft Application Verifier) the system becomes memory-speed bound and doesn't crash (Memory-bound: CPU is not getting above 50%, disk light is not on, the program's going as fast it can, box consuming 1.3G of 2G of RAM). So, I've got a choice between being able to reproduce the problem (but not identify the cause) or being able to idenify the cause or a problem I can't reproduce.
My current best guesses as to where to next is:
Get an insanely grunty box (to replace the current dev box: 2Gb RAM in an E6550 Core2 Duo); this will make it possible to repro the crash causing mis-behaviour when running under a powerful debug environment; or
Rewrite operators new and delete to use VirtualAlloc and VirtualProtect to mark memory as read-only as soon as it's done with. Run under MSVC6 and have the OS catch the bad-guy who's writing to freed memory. Yes, this is a sign of desperation: who the hell rewrites new and delete?! I wonder if this is going to make it as slow as under Purify et al.
And, no: Shipping with Purify instrumentation built in is not an option.
A colleague just walked past and asked "Stack Overflow? Are we getting stack overflows now?!?"
And now, the question: How do I locate the heap corruptor?
Update: balancing new[] and delete[] seems to have gotten a long way towards solving the problem. Instead of 15mins, the app now goes about two hours before crashing. Not there yet. Any further suggestions? The heap corruption persists.
Update: a release build under Visual Studio 2008 seems dramatically better; current suspicion rests on the STL implementation that ships with VS98.
Reproduce the problem. Dr Watson will produce a dump that might be helpful in further analysis.
I'll take a note of that, but I'm concerned that Dr Watson will only be tripped up after the fact, not when the heap is getting stomped on.
Another try might be using WinDebug as a debugging tool which is quite powerful being at the same time also lightweight.
Got that going at the moment, again: not much help until something goes wrong. I want to catch the vandal in the act.
Maybe these tools will allow you at least to narrow the problem to certain component.
I don't hold much hope, but desperate times call for...
And are you sure that all the components of the project have correct runtime library settings (C/C++ tab, Code Generation category in VS 6.0 project settings)?
No I'm not, and I'll spend a couple of hours tomorrow going through the workspace (58 projects in it) and checking they're all compiling and linking with the appropriate flags.
Update: This took 30 seconds. Select all projects in the Settings dialog, unselect until you find the project(s) that don't have the right settings (they all had the right settings).
My first choice would be a dedicated heap tool such as pageheap.exe.
Rewriting new and delete might be useful, but that doesn't catch the allocs committed by lower-level code. If this is what you want, better to Detour the low-level alloc APIs using Microsoft Detours.
Also sanity checks such as: verify your run-time libraries match (release vs. debug, multi-threaded vs. single-threaded, dll vs. static lib), look for bad deletes (eg, delete where delete [] should have been used), make sure you're not mixing and matching your allocs.
Also try selectively turning off threads and see when/if the problem goes away.
What does the call stack etc look like at the time of the first exception?
I have same problems in my work (we also use VC6 sometimes). And there is no easy solution for it. I have only some hints:
Try with automatic crash dumps on production machine (see Process Dumper). My experience says Dr. Watson is not perfect for dumping.
Remove all catch(...) from your code. They often hide serious memory exceptions.
Check Advanced Windows Debugging - there are lots of great tips for problems like yours. I recomend this with all my heart.
If you use STL try STLPort and checked builds. Invalid iterator are hell.
Good luck. Problems like yours take us months to solve. Be ready for this...
We've had pretty good luck by writing our own malloc and free functions. In production, they just call the standard malloc and free, but in debug, they can do whatever you want. We also have a simple base class that does nothing but override the new and delete operators to use these functions, then any class you write can simply inherit from that class. If you have a ton of code, it may be a big job to replace calls to malloc and free to the new malloc and free (don't forget realloc!), but in the long run it's very helpful.
In Steve Maguire's book Writing Solid Code (highly recommended), there are examples of debug stuff that you can do in these routines, like:
Keep track of allocations to find leaks
Allocate more memory than necessary and put markers at the beginning and end of memory -- during the free routine, you can ensure these markers are still there
memset the memory with a marker on allocation (to find usage of uninitialized memory) and on free (to find usage of free'd memory)
Another good idea is to never use things like strcpy, strcat, or sprintf -- always use strncpy, strncat, and snprintf. We've written our own versions of these as well, to make sure we don't write off the end of a buffer, and these have caught lots of problems too.
Run the original application with ADplus -crash -pn appnename.exe
When the memory issue pops-up you will get a nice big dump.
You can analyze the dump to figure what memory location was corrupted.
If you are lucky the overwrite memory is a unique string you can figure out where it came from. If you are not lucky, you will need to dig into win32 heap and figure what was the orignal memory characteristics. (heap -x might help)
After you know what was messed-up, you can narrow appverifier usage with special heap settings. i.e. you can specify what DLL you monitor, or what allocation size to monitor.
Hopefully this will speedup the monitoring enough to catch the culprit.
In my experience, I never needed full heap verifier mode, but I spent a lot of time analyzing the crash dump(s) and browsing sources.
P.S:
You can use DebugDiag to analyze the dumps.
It can point out the DLL owning the corrupted heap, and give you other usefull details.
You should attack this problem with both runtime and static analysis.
For static analysis consider compiling with PREfast (cl.exe /analyze). It detects mismatched delete and delete[], buffer overruns and a host of other problems. Be prepared, though, to wade through many kilobytes of L6 warning, especially if your project still has L4 not fixed.
PREfast is available with Visual Studio Team System and, apparently, as part of Windows SDK.
Is this in low memory conditions? If so it might be that new is returning NULL rather than throwing std::bad_alloc. Older VC++ compilers didn't properly implement this. There is an article about Legacy memory allocation failures crashing STL apps built with VC6.
The apparent randomness of the memory corruption sounds very much like a thread synchronization issue - a bug is reproduced depending on machine speed. If objects (chuncks of memory) are shared among threads and synchronization (critical section, mutex, semaphore, other) primitives are not on per-class (per-object, per-class) basis, then it is possible to come to a situation where class (chunk of memory) is deleted / freed while in use, or used after deleted / freed.
As a test for that, you could add synchronization primitives to each class and method. This will make your code slower because many objects will have to wait for each other, but if this eliminates the heap corruption, your heap-corruption problem will become a code optimization one.
You tried old builds, but is there a reason you can't keep going further back in the repository history and seeing exactly when the bug was introduced?
Otherwise, I would suggest adding simple logging of some kind to help track down the problem, though I am at a loss of what specifically you might want to log.
If you can find out what exactly CAN cause this problem, via google and documentation of the exceptions you are getting, maybe that will give further insight on what to look for in the code.
My first action would be as follows:
Build the binaries in "Release" version but creating debug info file (you will find this possibility in project settings).
Use Dr Watson as a defualt debugger (DrWtsn32 -I) on a machine on which you want to reproduce the problem.
Repdroduce the problem. Dr Watson will produce a dump that might be helpful in further analysis.
Another try might be using WinDebug as a debugging tool which is quite powerful being at the same time also lightweight.
Maybe these tools will allow you at least to narrow the problem to certain component.
And are you sure that all the components of the project have correct runtime library settings (C/C++ tab, Code Generation category in VS 6.0 project settings)?
So from the limited information you have, this can be a combination of one or more things:
Bad heap usage, i.e., double frees, read after free, write after free, setting the HEAP_NO_SERIALIZE flag with allocs and frees from multiple threads on the same heap
Out of memory
Bad code (i.e., buffer overflows, buffer underflows, etc.)
"Timing" issues
If it's at all the first two but not the last, you should have caught it by now with either pageheap.exe.
Which most likely means it is due to how the code is accessing shared memory. Unfortunately, tracking that down is going to be rather painful. Unsynchronized access to shared memory often manifests as weird "timing" issues. Things like not using acquire/release semantics for synchronizing access to shared memory with a flag, not using locks appropriately, etc.
At the very least, it would help to be able to track allocations somehow, as was suggested earlier. At least then you can view what actually happened up until the heap corruption and attempt to diagnose from that.
Also, if you can easily redirect allocations to multiple heaps, you might want to try that to see if that either fixes the problem or results in more reproduceable buggy behavior.
When you were testing with VS2008, did you run with HeapVerifier with Conserve Memory set to Yes? That might reduce the performance impact of the heap allocator. (Plus, you have to run with it Debug->Start with Application Verifier, but you may already know that.)
You can also try debugging with Windbg and various uses of the !heap command.
MSN
Graeme's suggestion of custom malloc/free is a good idea. See if you can characterize some pattern about the corruption to give you a handle to leverage.
For example, if it is always in a block of the same size (say 64 bytes) then change your malloc/free pair to always allocate 64 byte chunks in their own page. When you free a 64 byte chunk then set the memory protection bits on that page to prevent reads and wites (using VirtualQuery). Then anyone attempting to access this memory will generate an exception rather than corrupting the heap.
This does assume that the number of outstanding 64 byte chunks is only moderate or you have a lot of memory to burn in the box!
If you choose to rewrite new/delete, I have done this and have simple source code at:
http://gandolf.homelinux.org/~smhanov/blog/?id=10
This catches memory leaks and also inserts guard data before and after the memory block to capture heap corruption. You can just integrate with it by putting #include "debug.h" at the top of every CPP file, and defining DEBUG and DEBUG_MEM.
The little time I had to solve a similar problem.
If the problem still exists I suggest you do this :
Monitor all calls to new/delete and malloc/calloc/realloc/free.
I make single DLL exporting a function for register all calls. This function receive parameter for identifying your code source, pointer to allocated area and type of call saving this information in a table.
All allocated/freed pair is eliminated. At the end or after you need you make a call to an other function for create report for left data.
With this you can identify wrong calls (new/free or malloc/delete) or missing.
If have any case of buffer overwritten in your code the information saved can be wrong but each test may detect/discover/include a solution of failure identified. Many runs to help identify the errors.
Good luck.
Do you think this is a race condition? Are multiple threads sharing one heap? Can you give each thread a private heap with HeapCreate, then they can run fast with HEAP_NO_SERIALIZE. Otherwise, a heap should be thread safe, if you're using the multi-threaded version of the system libraries.
A couple of suggestions. You mention the copious warnings at W4 - I would suggest taking the time to fix your code to compile cleanly at warning level 4 - this will go a long way to preventing subtle hard to find bugs.
Second - for the /analyze switch - it does indeed generate copious warnings. To use this switch in my own project, what I did was to create a new header file that used #pragma warning to turn off all the additional warnings generated by /analyze. Then further down in the file, I turn on only those warnings I care about. Then use the /FI compiler switch to force this header file to be included first in all your compilation units. This should allow you to use the /analyze switch while controling the output