llvm dev - Mar 2014 - [LLVMdev] getElapsedWallTime unnecessary heap allocation and memory leak

> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at
cs.uiuc.edu]
> On Behalf Of Bryan Keiren
> Subject: [LLVMdev] getElapsedWallTime unnecessary heap allocation and
memory leak
> In the file \lib\Support\Process.cpp on line 60, it seems as though an 
> unnecessary heap allocation and memory leak occurs.
> static TimeValue getElapsedWallTime() {
>  static TimeValue &StartTime = *new TimeValue(TimeValue::now());
>  return TimeValue::now() - StartTime;
> }
> The issue is that the StartTime variable's value is allocated on the
heap,
> after which a *reference* to it is stored (not the pointer itself). This 
> means that the allocated memory is actually never properly de-allocated. 
Since the StartTime field is static, why is this considered a leak?  The
reference has not been lost and is utilized whenever getElapsedWallTime() is
invoked.  Although it might be infinitesimally more efficient to avoid the new
operator, the overall memory consumption is almost identical.

Are you trying to get rid of the entire heap at some point before process
termination?

 - Chuck

We are indeed trying to completely clean the heap before exiting main().


-----Original Message-----
From: Caldarale, Charles R [mailto:Chuck.Caldarale at unisys.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 14:42
To: Bryan Keiren; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: RE: [LLVMdev] getElapsedWallTime unnecessary heap allocation and memory
leak
> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at
cs.uiuc.edu]
> On Behalf Of Bryan Keiren
> Subject: [LLVMdev] getElapsedWallTime unnecessary heap allocation and 
> memory leak
> In the file \lib\Support\Process.cpp on line 60, it seems as though an 
> unnecessary heap allocation and memory leak occurs.
> static TimeValue getElapsedWallTime() {
>  static TimeValue &StartTime = *new TimeValue(TimeValue::now());
>  return TimeValue::now() - StartTime;
> }
> The issue is that the StartTime variable's value is allocated on the 
> heap, after which a *reference* to it is stored (not the pointer 
> itself). This means that the allocated memory is actually never properly
de-allocated.
Since the StartTime field is static, why is this considered a leak?  The
reference has not been lost and is utilized whenever getElapsedWallTime() is
invoked.  Although it might be infinitesimally more efficient to avoid the new
operator, the overall memory consumption is almost identical.

Are you trying to get rid of the entire heap at some point before process
termination?

 - Chuck

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Bryan Keiren <
bryan.keiren at guerrilla-games.com> wrote:
> We are indeed trying to completely clean the heap before exiting main().
>
Which means that you either don't have threads, or you join all threads
before main exits.
Is that the case?
Good for you if so!

>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Caldarale, Charles R [mailto:Chuck.Caldarale at unisys.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 14:42
> To: Bryan Keiren; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: RE: [LLVMdev] getElapsedWallTime unnecessary heap allocation and
> memory leak
>
> > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at
cs.uiuc.edu]
> > On Behalf Of Bryan Keiren
> > Subject: [LLVMdev] getElapsedWallTime unnecessary heap allocation and
> > memory leak
>
> > In the file \lib\Support\Process.cpp on line 60, it seems as though an
> > unnecessary heap allocation and memory leak occurs.
>
> > static TimeValue getElapsedWallTime() {
> >  static TimeValue &StartTime = *new TimeValue(TimeValue::now());
> >  return TimeValue::now() - StartTime;
> > }
>
> > The issue is that the StartTime variable's value is allocated on
the
> > heap, after which a *reference* to it is stored (not the pointer
> > itself). This means that the allocated memory is actually never
properly
> de-allocated.
>
> Since the StartTime field is static, why is this considered a leak?  The
> reference has not been lost and is utilized whenever getElapsedWallTime()
> is invoked.  Although it might be infinitesimally more efficient to avoid
> the new operator, the overall memory consumption is almost identical.
>
> Are you trying to get rid of the entire heap at some point before process
> termination?
>
>  - Chuck
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140319/37c36f16/attachment.html>