https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115689
--- Comment #5 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jerry DeLisle from comment #4) > (In reply to kargls from comment #3) > > The code you posted is standard conforming, and when > > compiled, executes as expected. > > > > My point is that the program is exiting. The operate system will > > reap the process and reclaim the memory. Valgrind need not warn > > about this. It is just noise. It is not a memory leak. If anything > > it is poor programming on the part of the person that wrote the > > code, and arguably a bug the code. > > > > I agree completely, I would prefer that programmers explicitly deallocate. That's what I do in runtime tests (unless I forget to). > I simply do not know what our expectations should be when testing. Maybe in > this case it is a don't care. I posted the question for clarification from > others. Running the program from comment#0 - compiled with ifx - under valgrind gives here: ==12826== HEAP SUMMARY: ==12826== in use at exit: 60 bytes in 1 blocks ==12826== total heap usage: 13 allocs, 12 frees, 12,926 bytes allocated ==12826== ==12826== LEAK SUMMARY: ==12826== definitely lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks ==12826== indirectly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks ==12826== possibly lost: 60 bytes in 1 blocks But as Steve pointed out: this is irrelevant, just a hint to the programmer.
