Re: [Valgrind-users] Definitely lost

[Xiang Y. <xy...@pr...>]

 On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Xiang Yan wrote:
>
> > My question is, for code below, valgrind will report an error or not on
memory allocated for c1::m_p1?
> > class c1
> > {
> >    ~c1()
> >  {
> >    delete []m_p1;
> >  }
> >  void * m_p1;
> > }
> >
> > class c2
> > {
> >  ~c2() {
> >    if(m_c1 != NULL)
> >       delete []m_c1;
> >  }
> >  func1() {
> >    m_c1 = new c1[10];
> >    for(i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
> >      m_c1[i].m_p1 = new char[10]; // reports definitely lost here
> >   }
> >  }
> >   c1 *m_c1;
> > }
> >
> > somewhere else outside above class has following call:
> > c2 *pc2 = new c2();
> > c2->func1();
> > delete c2;
>
> You've written an almost-whole program, and you want to know what Valgrind
> says about it?
>
> It looks to me like there won't be any errors, because AFAICT the memory
> is all deallocated correctly.  But I suggest you finish and compile the
> program, and run Valgrind on it.

That's the result of running Valgrind on my code, the line it indicated is
below with definitly lost message:
m_c1[i].m_p1 = new char[10];  // refer to above
(it's multithreaded btw)