有没有办法验证我的程序是否存在内存泄漏问题？

Question

有没有办法验证我的程序是否存在内存泄漏问题？

cdebuggingmemorymemory-managementmemory-leaks

6

我希望确定以下程序（寻找最大子数组的实现）是否存在内存泄漏。有没有一般方法来确定这个问题？例如使用调试器的某些特性？有哪些一般策略可用？

struct Interval {
   int max_left;
   int max_right;
   int sum;
};

struct Interval * max_crossing_subarray(int A[], int low, int mid, int high) {
    struct Interval * crossing = malloc(sizeof(struct Interval));

    int left_sum = INT_MIN;
    int sum = 0;

    for(int i = mid; i >= low; --i) {
        sum = sum + A[i];
        if(sum > left_sum) {
            left_sum = sum;
            crossing->max_left = i;
        }
    }

    int right_sum = INT_MIN;
    sum = 0;

    for(int j = mid+1; j <= high; ++j) {
        sum = sum + A[j];
        if(sum > right_sum) {
            right_sum = sum;
            crossing->max_right = j;
        }
    }

    crossing->sum = left_sum + right_sum;

    return crossing;
}

struct Interval * max_subarray(int A[], int low, int high) {
    if(high == low) {
        struct Interval * base = malloc(sizeof(struct Interval));
        *base = (struct Interval) { low, high, A[low] };
        return base;
    } else {
        int mid = floor((low+high)/2);
        struct Interval * left = malloc(sizeof(struct Interval));
        struct Interval * right = malloc(sizeof(struct Interval));
        left = max_subarray(A, low, mid);
        right = max_subarray(A, mid+1, high);
        struct Interval * cross = max_crossing_subarray(A, low, mid, high);
        if(left->sum >= right->sum & right->sum >= cross->sum) {
            free(right);
            free(cross);
            return left;
        } else if(right->sum >= left->sum & right->sum >= cross-> sum) {
            free(left);
            free(cross);
            return right;
        } else {
            free(left);
            free(right);
            return cross;
        }
    }
}

int main()
{
    int A[] = {-10, 7, -5, -3, 40, 4, -1, 8, -3, -1, -5, 20, 7};
    struct Interval * result = max_subarray(A, 0, 12);

    printf("left: %i, right: %i, sum: %i\n", result->max_left, result->max_right, result->sum);

    return 0;
}

由于程序的递归性质，它很难跟随（至少对我来说是这样）。我认为我已经解决了所有问题，但我想找到一种确保的方法。

编辑：所选答案中建议的软件帮助我找到了所有泄漏，正如评论中指出的那样，没有理由分配左侧和右侧，下面是无内存泄漏的代码。

struct Interval {
   int max_left;
   int max_right;
   int sum;
};

struct Interval * max_crossing_subarray(int A[], int low, int mid, int high) {
    struct Interval * crossing = malloc(sizeof(struct Interval));

    int left_sum = INT_MIN;
    int sum = 0;

    for(int i = mid; i >= low; --i) {
        sum = sum + A[i];
        if(sum > left_sum) {
            left_sum = sum;
            crossing->max_left = i;
        }
    }

    int right_sum = INT_MIN;
    sum = 0;

    for(int j = mid+1; j <= high; ++j) {
        sum = sum + A[j];
        if(sum > right_sum) {
            right_sum = sum;
            crossing->max_right = j;
        }
    }

    crossing->sum = left_sum + right_sum;

    return crossing;
}

struct Interval * max_subarray(int A[], int low, int high) {
    if(high == low) {
        struct Interval * base = malloc(sizeof(struct Interval));
        *base = (struct Interval) { low, high, A[low] };
        return base;
    } else {
        int mid = floor((low+high)/2);
        struct Interval * left = max_subarray(A, low, mid);
        struct Interval * right = max_subarray(A, mid+1, high);
        struct Interval * cross = max_crossing_subarray(A, low, mid, high);
        if(left->sum >= right->sum & right->sum >= cross->sum) {
            free(right);
            free(cross);
            return left;
        } else if(right->sum >= left->sum & right->sum >= cross-> sum) {
            free(left);
            free(cross);
            return right;
        } else {
            free(left);
            free(right);
            return cross;
        }
    }
}

int main()
{
    int A[] = {-10, 7, -5, -3, 40, 4, -1, 8, -3, -1, -5, 20, 7};
    struct Interval * result = max_subarray(A, 0, 13-1);

    printf("left: %i, right: %i, sum: %i\n", result->max_left, result->max_right, result->sum);

    return 0;
}

- Ivor Denham-Dyson

3

在我看来，它泄漏了几乎所有分配的内容。你为left和right分配内存，然后立即通过将其他东西分配给这些变量来丢弃这些内存分配。因此，这些内存被浪费掉了，之后就不知道free实际上释放了什么。 - Sami Kuhmonen

好奇的Ivor Denham-Dyson，为什么要使用 floor((low+high)/2); 而不是 (low+high)/2;？ - chux - Reinstate Monica

@chux-ReinstateMonica (low+high)/2 不保证返回整数，尽管我认为隐式转换不会造成问题。 - Ivor Denham-Dyson

IvorDenham-Dyson，感谢您提供的信息。使用int low和int high，(low+high)/2返回一个int。没有强制转换。商的小数部分被丢弃 - 向零舍入。 - chux - Reinstate Monica

@chux-ReinstateMonica 同意，我已经包含了它，因为我正在翻译伪代码，但是我想象它是不必要的。 - Ivor Denham-Dyson

4个回答

2

一般情况下，除非将语言限制在子语言（例如Misra）中并减少其功能，否则无法证明程序的正确性。一般来说，这是一个不可判定的问题。

但是您可以使用软件（如lint）对数学模式进行静态检查，或使用valgrind进行动态检查，或使用像Coq这样的语言，其中程序就是证明，并且它们使用Hoare逻辑来对代码进行陈述。例如，使用Hoare逻辑，已经证明了Windows内核永远不会出现段错误。

- alinsoar

1

除了已经提到的检测器，包括最突出的valgrind，您可以使用AddressSanitizer工具，它集成了LeakSanitizer并在GCC4.8版本和Clang3.1版本以后实现。

相应的编译器标志是-fsanitize=address和-fsanitize=leak。

此外，您还可以使用MemorySanitizer，用于读取未初始化数据的尝试。

对于gcc，您可以在这里找到所有相关标志。

https://clang.llvm.org/docs/AddressSanitizer.html

如何在GCC中使用AddressSanitizer？

- RobertS supports Monica Cellio

0

在您的程序的所有情况下，每个通过malloc分配的结构都必须通过free释放。因此，在所有情况下，您都会返回一个Interval实例。您必须在主块中释放它。或者，您可以使用智能指针/分配器。此外，您还可以为Interval实现operator =，并使用实例而不是指针。为了快速分配返回值，您可以使用std::swap

Intreval & operator=(Intreval && a)
{
    std::swap(a.max_left,max_left);
    std::swap(a.max_rignt,max_rignt);
    std::swap(a.sum,sum);
    return *this;
}

最终，如果你不确定的话，不要使用malloc。

- Anton Anisimov

谢谢Anton，这个问题是关于C语言而不是C++，但也许有人会发现它有用。 - Ivor Denham-Dyson

在这种情况下，只有在主块中使用free才有帮助。:-) 我没有注意到标签“c”，对不起。 - Anton Anisimov

网页内容由stack overflow 提供, 点击上面的

可以查看英文原文，
原文链接

- dbush · Accepted Answer

您可以使用 valgrind，它是一种针对 Linux 和其他类 UNIX 操作系统的内存调试工具，可查找内存泄漏和无效内存访问。当我将此代码通过 valgrind 运行时，输出如下：

[dbush@db-centos7 ~]$ valgrind ./x1
==3406== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==3406== Copyright (C) 2002-2017, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==3406== Using Valgrind-3.14.0 and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info
==3406== Command: ./x1
==3406== 
left: 4, right: 12, sum: 69
==3406== 
==3406== HEAP SUMMARY:
==3406==     in use at exit: 300 bytes in 25 blocks
==3406==   total heap usage: 49 allocs, 24 frees, 588 bytes allocated
==3406== 
==3406== LEAK SUMMARY:
==3406==    definitely lost: 300 bytes in 25 blocks
==3406==    indirectly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==3406==      possibly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==3406==    still reachable: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==3406==         suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==3406== Rerun with --leak-check=full to see details of leaked memory
==3406== 
==3406== For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -v
==3406== ERROR SUMMARY: 0 errors from 0 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)

那么你有一些内存泄漏问题。现在，让我们传递--leak-check=full选项来查看这些内存泄漏的确切位置：

==11531== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==11531== Copyright (C) 2002-2017, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==11531== Using Valgrind-3.14.0 and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info
==11531== Command: ./x1
==11531== 
left: 4, right: 12, sum: 69
==11531== 
==11531== HEAP SUMMARY:
==11531==     in use at exit: 300 bytes in 25 blocks
==11531==   total heap usage: 49 allocs, 24 frees, 588 bytes allocated
==11531== 
==11531== 12 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 1 of 25
==11531==    at 0x4C29EA3: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:309)
==11531==    by 0x4007A8: max_subarray (x1.c:49)
==11531==    by 0x400931: main (x1.c:73)
==11531== 
==11531== 12 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 2 of 25
==11531==    at 0x4C29EA3: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:309)
==11531==    by 0x4007B6: max_subarray (x1.c:50)
==11531==    by 0x400931: main (x1.c:73)
==11531== 
==11531== 12 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 3 of 25
==11531==    at 0x4C29EA3: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:309)
==11531==    by 0x4007A8: max_subarray (x1.c:49)
==11531==    by 0x4007CE: max_subarray (x1.c:51)
==11531==    by 0x400931: main (x1.c:73)
==11531== 
==11531== 12 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 4 of 25
==11531==    at 0x4C29EA3: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:309)
==11531==    by 0x4007B6: max_subarray (x1.c:50)
==11531==    by 0x4007CE: max_subarray (x1.c:51)
==11531==    by 0x400931: main (x1.c:73)
==11531== 
==11531== 12 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 5 of 25
==11531==    at 0x4C29EA3: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:309)
==11531==    by 0x4007A8: max_subarray (x1.c:49)
==11531==    by 0x4007CE: max_subarray (x1.c:51)
==11531==    by 0x4007CE: max_subarray (x1.c:51)
==11531==    by 0x400931: main (x1.c:73)
==11531== 
==11531== 12 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 6 of 25
==11531==    at 0x4C29EA3: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:309)
==11531==    by 0x4007B6: max_subarray (x1.c:50)
==11531==    by 0x4007CE: max_subarray (x1.c:51)
==11531==    by 0x4007CE: max_subarray (x1.c:51)
==11531==    by 0x400931: main (x1.c:73)
==11531== 
==11531== 12 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 7 of 25
==11531==    at 0x4C29EA3: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:309)
==11531==    by 0x4007A8: max_subarray (x1.c:49)
==11531==    by 0x4007CE: max_subarray (x1.c:51)
==11531==    by 0x4007CE: max_subarray (x1.c:51)
==11531==    by 0x4007CE: max_subarray (x1.c:51)
==11531==    by 0x400931: main (x1.c:73)
==11531== 
==11531== 12 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 8 of 25
==11531==    at 0x4C29EA3: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:309)
==11531==    by 0x4007B6: max_subarray (x1.c:50)
==11531==    by 0x4007CE: max_subarray (x1.c:51)
==11531==    by 0x4007CE: max_subarray (x1.c:51)
==11531==    by 0x4007CE: max_subarray (x1.c:51)
==11531==    by 0x400931: main (x1.c:73)
==11531== 
==11531== 12 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 9 of 25
==11531==    at 0x4C29EA3: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:309)
==11531==    by 0x4007A8: max_subarray (x1.c:49)
==11531==    by 0x4007E9: max_subarray (x1.c:52)
==11531==    by 0x4007CE: max_subarray (x1.c:51)
==11531==    by 0x4007CE: max_subarray (x1.c:51)
==11531==    by 0x400931: main (x1.c:73)
==11531== 
==11531== 12 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 10 of 25
==11531==    at 0x4C29EA3: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:309)
==11531==    by 0x4007B6: max_subarray (x1.c:50)
==11531==    by 0x4007E9: max_subarray (x1.c:52)
==11531==    by 0x4007CE: max_subarray (x1.c:51)
==11531==    by 0x4007CE: max_subarray (x1.c:51)
==11531==    by 0x400931: main (x1.c:73)
==11531== 
==11531== 12 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 11 of 25
==11531==    at 0x4C29EA3: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:309)
==11531==    by 0x4007A8: max_subarray (x1.c:49)
==11531==    by 0x4007E9: max_subarray (x1.c:52)
==11531==    by 0x4007CE: max_subarray (x1.c:51)
==11531==    by 0x400931: main (x1.c:73)
==11531== 
==11531== 12 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 12 of 25
==11531==    at 0x4C29EA3: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:309)
==11531==    by 0x4007B6: max_subarray (x1.c:50)
==11531==    by 0x4007E9: max_subarray (x1.c:52)
==11531==    by 0x4007CE: max_subarray (x1.c:51)
==11531==    by 0x400931: main (x1.c:73)
==11531== 
==11531== 12 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 13 of 25
==11531==    at 0x4C29EA3: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:309)
==11531==    by 0x4007A8: max_subarray (x1.c:49)
==11531==    by 0x4007CE: max_subarray (x1.c:51)
==11531==    by 0x4007E9: max_subarray (x1.c:52)
==11531==    by 0x4007CE: max_subarray (x1.c:51)
==11531==    by 0x400931: main (x1.c:73)
==11531== 
==11531== 12 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 14 of 25
==11531==    at 0x4C29EA3: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:309)
==11531==    by 0x4007B6: max_subarray (x1.c:50)
==11531==    by 0x4007CE: max_subarray (x1.c:51)
==11531==    by 0x4007E9: max_subarray (x1.c:52)
==11531==    by 0x4007CE: max_subarray (x1.c:51)
==11531==    by 0x400931: main (x1.c:73)
==11531== 
==11531== 12 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 15 of 25
==11531==    at 0x4C29EA3: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:309)
==11531==    by 0x4007A8: max_subarray (x1.c:49)
==11531==    by 0x4007E9: max_subarray (x1.c:52)
==11531==    by 0x400931: main (x1.c:73)
==11531== 
==11531== 12 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 16 of 25
==11531==    at 0x4C29EA3: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:309)
==11531==    by 0x4007B6: max_subarray (x1.c:50)
==11531==    by 0x4007E9: max_subarray (x1.c:52)
==11531==    by 0x400931: main (x1.c:73)
==11531== 
==11531== 12 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 17 of 25
==11531==    at 0x4C29EA3: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:309)
==11531==    by 0x4007A8: max_subarray (x1.c:49)
==11531==    by 0x4007CE: max_subarray (x1.c:51)
==11531==    by 0x4007E9: max_subarray (x1.c:52)
==11531==    by 0x400931: main (x1.c:73)
==11531== 
==11531== 12 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 18 of 25
==11531==    at 0x4C29EA3: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:309)
==11531==    by 0x4007B6: max_subarray (x1.c:50)
==11531==    by 0x4007CE: max_subarray (x1.c:51)
==11531==    by 0x4007E9: max_subarray (x1.c:52)
==11531==    by 0x400931: main (x1.c:73)
==11531== 
==11531== 12 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 19 of 25
==11531==    at 0x4C29EA3: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:309)
==11531==    by 0x4007A8: max_subarray (x1.c:49)
==11531==    by 0x4007CE: max_subarray (x1.c:51)
==11531==    by 0x4007CE: max_subarray (x1.c:51)
==11531==    by 0x4007E9: max_subarray (x1.c:52)
==11531==    by 0x400931: main (x1.c:73)
==11531== 
==11531== 12 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 20 of 25
==11531==    at 0x4C29EA3: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:309)
==11531==    by 0x4007B6: max_subarray (x1.c:50)
==11531==    by 0x4007CE: max_subarray (x1.c:51)
==11531==    by 0x4007CE: max_subarray (x1.c:51)
==11531==    by 0x4007E9: max_subarray (x1.c:52)
==11531==    by 0x400931: main (x1.c:73)
==11531== 
==11531== 12 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 21 of 25
==11531==    at 0x4C29EA3: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:309)
==11531==    by 0x4007A8: max_subarray (x1.c:49)
==11531==    by 0x4007E9: max_subarray (x1.c:52)
==11531==    by 0x4007E9: max_subarray (x1.c:52)
==11531==    by 0x400931: main (x1.c:73)
==11531== 
==11531== 12 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 22 of 25
==11531==    at 0x4C29EA3: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:309)
==11531==    by 0x4007B6: max_subarray (x1.c:50)
==11531==    by 0x4007E9: max_subarray (x1.c:52)
==11531==    by 0x4007E9: max_subarray (x1.c:52)
==11531==    by 0x400931: main (x1.c:73)
==11531== 
==11531== 12 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 23 of 25
==11531==    at 0x4C29EA3: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:309)
==11531==    by 0x4007A8: max_subarray (x1.c:49)
==11531==    by 0x4007CE: max_subarray (x1.c:51)
==11531==    by 0x4007E9: max_subarray (x1.c:52)
==11531==    by 0x4007E9: max_subarray (x1.c:52)
==11531==    by 0x400931: main (x1.c:73)
==11531== 
==11531== 12 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 24 of 25
==11531==    at 0x4C29EA3: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:309)
==11531==    by 0x4007B6: max_subarray (x1.c:50)
==11531==    by 0x4007CE: max_subarray (x1.c:51)
==11531==    by 0x4007E9: max_subarray (x1.c:52)
==11531==    by 0x4007E9: max_subarray (x1.c:52)
==11531==    by 0x400931: main (x1.c:73)
==11531== 
==11531== 12 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 25 of 25
==11531==    at 0x4C29EA3: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:309)
==11531==    by 0x40065B: max_crossing_subarray (x1.c:13)
==11531==    by 0x400802: max_subarray (x1.c:53)
==11531==    by 0x400931: main (x1.c:73)
==11531== 
==11531== LEAK SUMMARY:
==11531==    definitely lost: 300 bytes in 25 blocks
==11531==    indirectly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==11531==      possibly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==11531==    still reachable: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==11531==         suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==11531== 
==11531== For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -v
==11531== ERROR SUMMARY: 25 errors from 25 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)

这些泄漏主要来自以下两行代码：

    struct Interval * left = malloc(sizeof(struct Interval));
    struct Interval * right = malloc(sizeof(struct Interval));

如果我们看一下接下来的两行，就会明白原因：

    left = max_subarray(A, low, mid);
    right = max_subarray(A, mid+1, high);

在将分配的内存地址赋给这些指针后，您立即使用其他值覆盖这些地址，导致泄漏。通过摆脱malloc调用并使用函数调用的结果进行初始化来解决此问题：

    struct Interval * left = max_subarray(A, low, mid);
    struct Interval * right = max_subarray(A, mid+1, high);

最后一个是在max_crossing_subarray中。

struct Interval * crossing = malloc(sizeof(struct Interval));

这个指针是从函数返回的，因此我们需要查看缺少的free在哪里。经过一些查找，我们发现它是从max_subarray调用的，最终将其作为result返回给main：

struct Interval * result = max_subarray(A, 0, 13-1);

printf("left: %i, right: %i, sum: %i\n", result->max_left, result->max_right, result->sum);

return 0;

但是正如你所看到的，这里没有调用free，因此让我们添加它：

struct Interval * result = max_subarray(A, 0, 13-1);

printf("left: %i, right: %i, sum: %i\n", result->max_left, result->max_right, result->sum);

free(result);
return 0;

在进行上述修复后，我们将再次运行valgrind：

==11736== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==11736== Copyright (C) 2002-2017, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==11736== Using Valgrind-3.14.0 and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info
==11736== Command: ./x1
==11736== 
left: 4, right: 12, sum: 69
==11736== 
==11736== HEAP SUMMARY:
==11736==     in use at exit: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==11736==   total heap usage: 25 allocs, 25 frees, 300 bytes allocated
==11736== 
==11736== All heap blocks were freed -- no leaks are possible
==11736== 
==11736== For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -v
==11736== ERROR SUMMARY: 0 errors from 0 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)

泄漏问题已经解决。