Mem leak

[tom groezer]

There is a class A which is defined like #include "stdafx.h" class A { public: A(); ~A(); }; static A a; A::A() { int * i = new int[10]; } A::~A() { } int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[]) { return 0; } Is there a memory leak here; The only diff is here we create the object of the class A as static.

[Nibu babu thomas]

tom groezer wrote:

int * i = new int[10];

tom groezer wrote:

Is there a memory leak here; The only diff is here we create the object of the class A as static.

This (*i) should be deleted right?

Nibu babu thomas Microsoft MVP for VC++ Code must be written to be read, not by the compiler, but by another human being. Programming Blog: http://nibuthomas.wordpress.com

[Jijo Raj]

tom groezer wrote:

A::A() { int * i = new int[10]; }

Even though the object is static, its constructor will be called and the memory allocation in constructor is not deleted else where. So its definitely a leak. Regards, Jijo.

_____________________________________________________ http://weseetips.com[^] Visual C++ tips and tricks. Updated daily.

[CPallini]

That is a memory leak by design. :-D

If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler. -- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong. -- Iain Clarke
[My articles]

[Nibu babu thomas]

CPallini wrote:

That is a memory leak by design.

Thought that was a typo, ;) was just too obvious to miss out.

Nibu babu thomas Microsoft MVP for VC++ Code must be written to be read, not by the compiler, but by another human being. Programming Blog: http://nibuthomas.wordpress.com

[tom groezer]

Yes just send that code to raise some interest. Now to fix that I did something like this below:-\ I added that delete statement in bold. I guess this should be perfect. Comments. #include "stdafx.h" class A { public: A(); ~A(); private: int* i; }; static A a; A::A() { int * i = new int[10]; } A::~A() { delete[] i; } int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[]) { return 0; }

[toxcct]

tom groezer wrote:

I guess this should be perfect. Comments.

perfect. but a question anyway : why didn't you just test it with your debugger ? ps: also, please format your posts correctly using <pre></pre> tags when you post code snippets...

[VisualCalc][Binary Guide][CommDialogs] | [Forums Guidelines]

[tom groezer]

actually I think it is correct but on eof the memory analysis tools complains still the same amount of leak. HENCE the question