valgrind memcheck 报告误报?
这是我的代码。
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
char buf1[100];
char buf2[100];
int main()
{
char **p = (char**)(buf1+sizeof(long));
char **q = (char**)(buf2+1);
*p = (char*)malloc(100);
*q = (char*)malloc(100);
strcpy(*p, "xxxx");
strcpy(*q, "zzzz");
printf("p:%s q:%s\n", *p, *q);
return 0;
}
我使用 gcc 编译了代码,并像这样运行 valgrind-3.6.1
valgrind --leak-check=full --log-file=test.log --show-reachable=yes ~/a.out
valgrind 给了我下面的日志
==20768== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==20768== Copyright (C) 2002-2010, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==20768== Using Valgrind-3.6.1 and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info
==20768== Command: /home/zxin11/a.out
==20768== Parent PID: 12686
==20768==
==20768==
==20768== HEAP SUMMARY:
==20768== in use at exit: 200 bytes in 2 blocks
==20768== total heap usage: 2 allocs, 0 frees, 200 bytes allocated
==20768==
==20768== 100 bytes in 1 blocks are still reachable in loss record 1 of 2
==20768== at 0x4C2488B: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:236)
==20768== by 0x4005FD: main (test2.c:12)
==20768==
==20768== 100 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 2 of 2
==20768== at 0x4C2488B: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:236)
==20768== by 0x400611: main (test2.c:13)
==20768==
==20768== LEAK SUMMARY:
==20768== definitely lost: 100 bytes in 1 blocks
==20768== indirectly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==20768== possibly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==20768== still reachable: 100 bytes in 1 blocks
==20768== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==20768==
==20768== For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -v
==20768== ERROR SUMMARY: 1 errors from 1 contexts (suppressed: 3 from 3)
为什么第一个 malloc 仍然可以访问,而第二个 malloc 肯定丢失了? 也许是关于对齐的,你不能将malloced内存的地址放入未对齐的变量中,如果是这样,我该如何抑制这种积极的报告? 非常想你。
Here's my code.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
char buf1[100];
char buf2[100];
int main()
{
char **p = (char**)(buf1+sizeof(long));
char **q = (char**)(buf2+1);
*p = (char*)malloc(100);
*q = (char*)malloc(100);
strcpy(*p, "xxxx");
strcpy(*q, "zzzz");
printf("p:%s q:%s\n", *p, *q);
return 0;
}
I compiled the code using gcc, and run valgrind-3.6.1 like this
valgrind --leak-check=full --log-file=test.log --show-reachable=yes ~/a.out
valgrind gave me the log below
==20768== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==20768== Copyright (C) 2002-2010, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==20768== Using Valgrind-3.6.1 and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info
==20768== Command: /home/zxin11/a.out
==20768== Parent PID: 12686
==20768==
==20768==
==20768== HEAP SUMMARY:
==20768== in use at exit: 200 bytes in 2 blocks
==20768== total heap usage: 2 allocs, 0 frees, 200 bytes allocated
==20768==
==20768== 100 bytes in 1 blocks are still reachable in loss record 1 of 2
==20768== at 0x4C2488B: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:236)
==20768== by 0x4005FD: main (test2.c:12)
==20768==
==20768== 100 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 2 of 2
==20768== at 0x4C2488B: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:236)
==20768== by 0x400611: main (test2.c:13)
==20768==
==20768== LEAK SUMMARY:
==20768== definitely lost: 100 bytes in 1 blocks
==20768== indirectly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==20768== possibly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==20768== still reachable: 100 bytes in 1 blocks
==20768== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==20768==
==20768== For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -v
==20768== ERROR SUMMARY: 1 errors from 1 contexts (suppressed: 3 from 3)
Why the first malloc was still reachable while the second malloc was definitely lost?
Maybe it's about alignment, you can't put the address of malloced memory into an un-aligned variable, if so, how can I suppress this kind of positive report?
Think you very much.
如果你对这篇内容有疑问,欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论,获取更多帮助,或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱,如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论,将不能在第一时间通知您!
发布评论
评论(1)
来自 memcheck 手册(重点是我的):
所以你关于对齐的猜想是正确的。不幸的是,强有力地抑制此类警告的最佳方法可能只是在退出程序之前将任何此类已知值复制到对齐的位置(大概此代码是您真实应用程序的模型,它对您来说有某种意义)存储未对齐的指针)。
您还可以尝试编写或生成抑制文件
--gen-suppressions=yes
。但是,如果您的应用程序是不确定的,或者您使用不同的输入数据运行它,那么这种方法很快就会变得烦人。From the memcheck manual (emphasis mine):
So your conjecture about alignment was correct. Unfortunately, the best way to robustly suppress such a warning is probably just to copy any such known values into aligned locations before exiting your program (presumably this code is a mock-up for your real application, where it makes some sort of sense for you to store unaligned pointers).
You can also try writing or generating a suppression file with
--gen-suppressions=yes
. But if your application is non-deterministic or you run it with different input data, this approach will get annoying pretty quickly.