Re: [Valgrind-users] "still reachable" memory from g++'sstd::string

[Maarten B. <maa...@mi...>]

Hello,

Just out of curiosity, why would s be destructed if you call exit()?
I find it somewhat hard to believe (counter intuitive, even unwanted)
that calling exit() from inside maybe a 10 level deep calling sequence
would cause all stack based variables to be destructed?

Thanks for any insights!

Cheers,

Maarten.


On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 23:36, Geoff Alexander wrote:
>  
>         ----- Original Message ----- 
>         From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge
>         To: Geoff Alexander
>         Cc: val...@li...
>         Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 1:31 AM
>         Subject: Re: [Valgrind-users] "still reachable" memory from
>         g++'sstd::string
>                 On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 20:47, Geoff Alexander wrote: 
>         > In running valgrind 1.0.4 against a small program of mine,
>         > valgrind reports "still reachable" memory at exit, both with
>         > g++ 2.95.2 and gcc 3.2 on SuSE Linux x86 7.1.  I've tracked
>         > the problem down to std::string.  Here's a small program
>         > that illustrates the problem: 
>         >         #include <cstdlib>
>         >         #include <string>
>         >         int main(int argc, char* argv[])
>         >         {
>         >           {
>         >             std::string s;
>         >             s += '0';
>         >           }
>         >           exit(0);
>         >         } 
>         
>         What happens if you return 0 rather than exit(0)?  I'm not
>         sure that s will necessarily have been destructed if you use
>         exit. 
>                 J 
> Thanks for the suggestion.  Using return 0 rather than exit(0) didn't
> change anything.  I verified under gdb that s is being destructed in
> both cases.
>  
> Geoff Alexander
-- 
Maarten Ballintijn <maa...@mi...>
Massachusetts Institute of Technology