【发布时间】:2016-03-14 02:28:59
【问题描述】:
我一直在为 realloc 与 valgrind 无法正常工作的一个奇怪案例争论不休。似乎我要么以某种方式分配太多,要么不正确地使用realloc。我非常重视 valgrind 错误,这样的错误让我非常担心。
最小的工作示例:
#include <stdlib.h>
typedef struct test {
size_t n;
size_t r;
int **ptrs;
} test;
test *new_test() {
test *t = malloc(sizeof(test));
t->n = 0; //number of elements
t->r = 1; //reserve
t->ptrs = calloc(t->r, sizeof(*(t->ptrs))); //calloc inits so we don't have to
return t;
}
void push_back_test(test *t, int *ptr) {
if (t->n == t->r) {
t->r <<= 1;
int **temp_ptr = realloc(t->ptrs, sizeof(t->ptrs) * t->r);
if (temp_ptr) {
t->ptrs = temp_ptr;
} else {
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
//NULL out the rest
for (int **ptri = t->ptrs + t->n; ptri < t->ptrs + t->r; ++ptri) {
(*ptri) = NULL;
}
}
t->ptrs[t->n] = ptr;
++(t->n);
}
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
test *t = new_test();
int *a = calloc(2, sizeof(int)); //calloc inits
int *b = calloc(4, sizeof(int));
int *c = calloc(8, sizeof(int));
push_back_test(t, a);
push_back_test(t, b);
push_back_test(t, c);
push_back_test(t, a);
push_back_test(t, b);
exit(EXIT_SUCCESS);
}
Valgrind 输出:
==26528== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==26528== Copyright (C) 2002-2013, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==26528== Using Valgrind-3.10.1 and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info
==26528== Command: ./test
==26528==
==26528== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)
==26528== at 0x435A32: __linkin_atfork (in /----/----/test)
==26528== by 0x414905: ptmalloc_init.part.8 (in /----/----/test)
==26528== by 0x414C7F: malloc_hook_ini (in /----/----/test)
==26528== by 0x465B1A: _dl_get_origin (in /----/----/test)
==26528== by 0x436AB4: _dl_non_dynamic_init (in /----/----/test)
==26528== by 0x437916: __libc_init_first (in /----/----/test)
==26528== by 0x40140F: (below main) (in /----/----/test)
==26528==
==26528== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)
==26528== at 0x4104BA: _int_free (in /----/----/test)
==26528== by 0x412C3B: _int_realloc (in /----/----/test)
==26528== by 0x414046: realloc (in /----/----/test)
==26528== by 0x40109D: push_back_test (test.c:20)
==26528== by 0x4011FB: main (test.c:44)
==26528==
==26528== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)
==26528== at 0x410518: _int_free (in /----/----/test)
==26528== by 0x412C3B: _int_realloc (in /----/----/test)
==26528== by 0x414046: realloc (in /----/----/test)
==26528== by 0x40109D: push_back_test (test.c:20)
==26528== by 0x4011FB: main (test.c:44)
==26528==
==26528==
==26528== HEAP SUMMARY:
==26528== in use at exit: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==26528== total heap usage: 0 allocs, 0 frees, 0 bytes allocated
==26528==
==26528== All heap blocks were freed -- no leaks are possible
==26528==
==26528== For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -v
==26528== Use --track-origins=yes to see where uninitialised values come from
==26528== ERROR SUMMARY: 3 errors from 3 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
现在我知道第一个错误可能是我的 libc 的问题,但其余的基本上是在告诉我,我并没有清空我分配的所有内存,而是在传递垃圾,我相信这不可能是我现在的样子取消新分配的内容。
我对此尝试了许多变体,它们要么(正确地)崩溃,要么给出这些消息。我很茫然。
编辑:我有问题的原始代码比这更正确。 我现在已经修好了 MWE,还是一样。
【问题讨论】:
-
test *new_test() 不返回指向
test *类型的指针。 -
开启编译器警告。
-
我有原始代码。 MWE 错了,现在结果相同。
-
觉得这有点难以置信 - 这些错误将是没有返回语句的直接结果。
-
gcc -std=gnu11 -Wall -static -g test.c -o testthenvalgrind ./testvalgrind 输出与原始输出相同