I am working on a fairly simple application written in C with GTK+ that is leaking memory badly. It has a few basic functions on timers that check the clock and poll an external networked device, parsing the string returned. The application runs on a small touch panel, and through TOP I can watch the available memory be eaten up as it runs.
I'm pretty new to C, so not surprised that I'm doing something wrong, I just can't seem to figure out what. I've been trying to use Valgrind to narrow it down, but honestly the output is a little over my head (10k+ line log file generated from running the application less than a minute). But in digging through that log I did find some functions repeatedly showing up with permanently lost blocks, all using some similar structure.
Example 1:
This is a short function that gets called when an option is selected. The last line with the g_strdup_printf is the one called out by Valgrind. select_next_show and select_show_five_displayed are both global variables.
static void show_box_five_clicked ()
{
g_timer_start(lock_timer);
gtk_image_set_from_file (GTK_IMAGE(select_show_1_cb_image), "./images/checkbox_clear.png");
gtk_image_set_from_file (GTK_IMAGE(select_show_2_cb_image), "./images/checkbox_clear.png");
gtk_image_set_from_file (GTK_IMAGE(select_show_3_cb_image), "./images/checkbox_clear.png");
gtk_image_set_from_file (GTK_IMAGE(select_show_4_cb_image), "./images/checkbox_clear.png");
gtk_image_set_from_file (GTK_IMAGE(select_show_5_cb_image), "./images/checkbox_checked.png");
select_next_show = g_strdup_printf("%i",select_show_five_displayed);
}
Example 2:
This is another function that gets called often and came up a lot in the Valgrind log. It takes the incoming response from the networked device, parses it into two strings, then returns one.
static gchar* parse_incoming_value(gchar* incoming_message)
{
gchar *ret;
GString *incoming = g_string_new(incoming_message);
gchar **messagePieces = g_strsplit((char *)incoming->str, "=", 2);
ret = g_strdup(messagePieces[1]);
g_strfreev(messagePieces);
g_string_free(incoming, TRUE);
return ret;
}
In all the cases like these which are causing problems I'm freeing everything I can without causing segmentation faults, but I must be missing something else or doing something wrong.
UPDATE:
To answer questions in comments, here is an example (trimmed down) of how I'm using the parse function and where the return is freed:
static void load_schedule ()
{
...other code...
gchar *holder;
gchar *holder2;
holder = read_a_line(schedListenSocket);
holder2 = parse_incoming_value(holder);
schedule_info->regShowNumber = holder2;
holder = read_a_line(schedListenSocket);
holder2 = parse_incoming_value(holder);
schedule_info->holidayShowNumber = holder2;
...other code....
g_free(holder);
g_free(holder2);
}
Any help is greatly appreciated!!
It looks like you free 'ret' once when calling g_free(holder2), but you've done multiple allocations for that one free - you call parse_incoming_value multiple times, each time causing an allocation, but you only free once right at the end.
As you copy the holder2 pointer into schedule_info elements each time, they actually have the "leaked" memory at the end.
If you do not free holder2 anywhere, but just free all the elements in schedule_info at the end of the code. I presume that shows no leak?
e.g.
holder2 = <result of dynamic alloc>;
schedule_info->a = holder2;
...
holder2 = <result of dynamic alloc>;
schedule_info->b = holder2;
...
// instead of g_free(holder2) at the end, do this...
g_free(schedule_info->a);
g_free(schedule_info->a);
Related
I'm trying to use realloc function in C, to dynamically operate on a char array of strings (char**).
I usually get a realloc():invalid old size error after 41st cicle of the for loop and I really can't understand why.
So, thanks to everyone who will help me ^-^
[EDIT] I'm trying to make the post more clear and following your advices, as a "new active member" of this community, so thank you all!
typedef struct _WordsOfInterest { // this is in an header file containing just
char **saved; // the struct and libraries
int index;
} wordsOfInterest;
int main() {
char *token1, *token2, *save1 = NULL, file[LEN], *temp, *word, **tokenArr;
int n=0, ch,ch2, flag=0, size, init=0,position,currEdit,init2=0,tempEdit,size_arr=LEN,
oldIndex=0,totalIndex=0,*editArr,counterTok=0;
wordsOfInterest toPrint;
char **final;
toPrint.index = 0;
toPrint.saved = malloc(sizeof(char*)*LEN);
editArr = malloc(sizeof(int)*LEN);
tokenArr = malloc(sizeof(char*)*LEN);
final = malloc(sizeof(char*)*1);
// external for loop
for(...) {
tokenArr[counterTok] = token1;
// internal while loop
while(...) {
// some code here surely not involved in the issue
} else {
if(init2 == 0) {
currEdit = config(token1,token2);
toPrint.saved[toPrint.index] = token2;
toPrint.index++;
init2 = 1;
} else {
if((abs((int)strlen(token1)-(int)strlen(token2)))<=currEdit) {
if((tempEdit = config(token1,token2)) == currEdit) {
toPrint.saved[toPrint.index] = token2;
toPrint.index++;
if(toPrint.index == size_arr-1) {
size_arr = size_arr*2;
toPrint.saved = realloc(toPrint.saved, size_arr);
}
} else if((tempEdit = config(token1,token2))<currEdit) {
freeArr(toPrint, size_arr);
toPrint.saved[toPrint.index] = token2;
toPrint.index++;
currEdit = tempEdit;
}
}
}
flag = 0;
word = NULL;
temp = NULL;
freeArr(toPrint, size_arr);
}
}
editArr[counterTok] = currEdit;
init2 = 0;
totalIndex = totalIndex + toPrint.index + 1;
final = realloc(final, (sizeof(char*)*totalIndex));
uniteArr(toPrint, final, oldIndex);
oldIndex = toPrint.index;
freeArr(toPrint,size_arr);
fseek(fp2,0,SEEK_SET);
counterTok++;
}
You start with final uninitialized.
char **final;
change it to:
char **final = NULL;
Even if you are starting with no allocation, it needs a valid value (e.g. NULL) because if you don't initialize a local variable to NULL, it gets garbage, and realloc() will think it is reallocating a valid chunk of memory and will fail into Undefined Behaviour. This is probably your problem, but as you have eliminated a lot of code in between the declaration and the first usage of realloc, whe cannot guess what is happening here.
Anyway, if you have indeed initialized it, I cannot say, as you have hidden part of the code, unlistening the recommendation of How to create a Minimal, Reproducible Example
.
There are several reasons (mostly explained there) to provide a full but m inimal, out of the box, failing code. This allows us to test that code without having to provide (and probably solving, all or part) the neccesary code to make it run. If you only post a concept, you cannot expect from us complete, full running, and tested code, degrading strongly the quality of SO answers.
This means you have work to do before posting, not just eliminating what you think is not worth mentioning.
You need to build a sample that, with minimum code, shows the actual behaviour you see (a nonworking complete program) This means eliminating everything that is not related to the problem.
You need (and this is by far more important) to, before sending the code, to test it at your site, and see that it behaves as you see at home. There are many examples that, when eliminated the unrelated code, don't show the commented behaviour.
...and then, without touching anymore the code, send it as is. Many times we see code that has been touched before sending, and the problem dissapeared.
If we need to build a program, we will probably do it with many other mistakes, but not yours, and this desvirtuates the purpose of this forum.
Finally, sorry for the flame.... but it is necessary to make people read the rules.
I'm making a GTK+3 application in C and I want a spinner to show when the program is processing the data. Here's what I generally have:
main()
{
//Some statements
g_signal_connect(G_OBJECT(btnGenerate), "clicked", G_CALLBACK(Generate), &mainform);
}
void Generate(GtkWidget *btnGenerate, form_widgets *p_main_form)
{
gtk_spinner_start(GTK_SPINNER(p_main_form->spnProcessing));
Begin_Lengthy_Processing(Parameters, Galore, ...);
//gtk_spinner_stop(GTK_SPINNER(p_main_form->spnProcessing));
}
I have the stop function commented out so I can see the spinner spin even after the function has finished, but the spinner starts after the function is finished, and I suspect it turns on in the main loop.
I also found out that the entire interface freezes during the execution of the long going function.
Is there a way to get it to start and display inside the callback function? I found the same question, but it uses Python and threads. This is C, not Python, so I would assume things are different.
You need to run your lengthy computation in a separate thread, or break it up into chunks and run each of them separately as idle callbacks in the main thread.
If your lengthy computation takes a single set of inputs and doesn’t need any more inputs until it’s finished, then you should construct it as a GTask and use g_task_run_in_thread() to start the task. Its result will be delivered back to the main thread via the GTask’s GAsyncReadyCallback. There’s an example here.
If it takes more input as it progresses, you probably want to use a GAsyncQueue to feed it more inputs, and a GThreadPool to provide the threads (amortising the cost of creating threads over multiple calls to the lengthy function, and protecting against denial of service).
The GNOME developer docs give an overview of how to do threading.
This is what I got:
int main()
{
// Statements...
g_signal_connect(G_OBJECT(btnGenerate), "clicked", G_CALLBACK(Process), &mainform);
// More statements...
}
void Process(GtkWidget *btnGenerate, form_widgets *p_main_form)
{
GError *processing_error;
GThread *start_processing;
gtk_spinner_start(GTK_SPINNER(p_main_form->spnProcessing));
active = true;
if((start_processing = g_thread_try_new(NULL, (GThreadFunc)Generate, p_main_form, &processing_error)) == NULL)
{
printf("%s\n", processing_error->message);
printf("Error, cannot create thread!?!?\n\n");
exit(processing_error->code);
}
}
void Generate(form_widgets *p_main_form)
{
// Long process
active = false;
}
My program, once cleaned up and finished, as there are many other bugs in the program, will be put on GitHub.
Thank you all for your help. This answer comes from looking at all of your answers and comments as well as reading some more documentation, but mostly your comments and answers.
I did something similar in my gtk3 program. It's not that difficult. Here's how I would go about it.
/**
g_idle_add_full() expects a pointer to a function with the signature below:
(*GSourceFunc) (gpointer user_data).
So your function signature must adhere to that in order to be called.
But you might want to pass variables to the function.
If you don't want to have the variables in the global scope
then you can do this:
typedef struct myDataType {
char* name;
int age;
} myDataType;
myDataType person = {"Max", 25};
then when calling g_idle_add_full() you do it this way:
g_idle_add_full(G_PRIORITY_HIGH_IDLE, myFunction, person, NULL);
*/
int main()
{
// Assumming there exist a pointer called data
g_idle_add_full(G_PRIORITY_HIGH_IDLE, lengthyProcessCallBack, data, NULL);
// GTK & GDK event loop continues and window should be responsive while function runs in background
}
gboolean lengthyProcessCallBack(gpointer data)
{
myDataType person = (myDataType) *data;
// Doing lenghthy stuff
while(;;) {
sleep(3600); // hypothetical long process :D
}
return FALSE; // removed from event sources and won't be called again.
}
I wrote a simple program module to ask a user for a profile name. To do that I create windoww with entry widget, and two buttons (Ok and Cancel) organized in a grid. When user enters a profile name that already exists it informs him of that fact by creating dialog with "ok" button, and after he presses it, it goes back to picking a profile name (the window was not hidden nor destroyed in the meantime). The problem is that when I create a profile, and then spam the ok button (by placing something heavy on enter key and going to make tea) on both profile name chooser and the dialog (making a simple loop with creation and destruction of a dialog) the memory usage of the program increases.
TL;DR
Simply creating and destroying gtk window (and dialog) seems to cause a memory leak. Leaving app in a loop made it increase it's memory usage by ~1900% (from 10mb to 200mb).
No, I didn't test for memory leaks using apps designed for it.
Yes, I've set G_SLICE=always-malloc.
Yes, there is another thread running in the background of the program (but I'm sure it doesn't cause any leaks)
I can post screens from Windows Performance Monitor if you want more info on what happens in the memory.
The question is - is it a memory leak caused by me, or is it GTK's fault (I heard it has a lazy policy of memory management, but after some time memory usage drops from 200mb to 140mb and stays there)?
Here's the code:
// This callback racts to the ok and cancel buttons. If input was correcs
// or the user pressed cancel it destroys the window. Else it show error
// prompt. The showing error prompt seems to be the problem here.
void pickNameButtCB(GtkWidget *button, gpointer *call)
{
GtkWidget *window = gtk_widget_get_toplevel(button);
if( *((char*)call) == 'k')
{
GList *entryBase = gtk_container_get_children(GTK_CONTAINER(gtk_bin_get_child(GTK_BIN(window)))), *entry = entryBase;
for(size_t i=g_list_length(entry); i>0 && !GTK_IS_ENTRY(entry->data); --i)
entry = g_list_next(entry);
if(gtk_entry_get_text_length(GTK_ENTRY(entry->data)) > 0)
{
const char *temp = gtk_entry_get_text(GTK_ENTRY(entry->data));
char path[266];
strcpy(path, settingsDir);
strcat(path, temp);
strcat(path, ".prof");
if(settProfExists(path))
{
g_list_free(entryBase);
showError(GTK_WINDOW(window), GTK_MESSAGE_ERROR, "Profile with that name already exists!");
return;
}
// nothing here executes as well
}
else
{
/** doesn't execute when the memory leak happens */
}
g_list_free(entryBase);
}
gtk_widget_destroy(window);
gtk_main_quit();
}
void showError(GtkWindow *parent, GtkMessageType type, const char *str)
{
GtkWidget *window = gtk_message_dialog_new(parent, GTK_DIALOG_DESTROY_WITH_PARENT, type, GTK_BUTTONS_OK, str);
g_signal_connect_swapped(window, "response", G_CALLBACK(gtk_widget_destroy), window);
gtk_dialog_run(GTK_DIALOG(window));
}
bool settProfExists(const char *path)
{
if(fileExists(path))
return true;
return false;
}
bool fileExists(const char *path)
{
struct stat info;
errno = 0;
if((stat(path, &info)) != 0)
if(errno == ENOENT)
return false;
return true;
}
Your code is too incomplete to find the root cause.
This line especially is doesn't make sense. We're missing the definition of entry and you're trying to do several operations on the same line (*entry = entryBase;).
GList *entryBase = gtk_container_get_children(GTK_CONTAINER(gtk_bin_get_child(GTK_BIN(window)))), *entry = entryBase;
The leak may however be in functions you call for which you don't provide the code (settProfExists, newProfile). So please provide a minimal compilable example that reproduces the problem.
As for the style, there are several errors: you're traversing a list the way you'd do with an array. See how is implemented GList and you'll see that this is silly (hint: look at entry->prev and entry->next):
for(size_t i=g_list_length(entry); i>0 && !GTK_IS_ENTRY(entry->data); --i)
entry = g_list_next(entry);
Then an architectural problem: don't try to inspect your UI to guess where are the widgets, just create a structure, and pass you call parameter and the GtkEntry you're interested in, in a structure with the gpointer data argument of the callback.
You should also not make paths by hand: you're using a fixed length array that may not be long enough. Use the portable g_build_path provided by the GLib (and free the path with g_free after use), that will handle for you Windows/Linux directories separators.
For your dialog, as you run gtk_run_dialog, you may just directly call gtk_destroy_widget afterwards instead of connecting a signal:
GtkWidget *window = gtk_message_dialog_new(parent, GTK_DIALOG_DESTROY_WITH_PARENT, type, GTK_BUTTONS_OK, str);
gtk_dialog_run(GTK_DIALOG(window));
gtk_widget_destroy(window);
void* password_cracker_thread(void* args) {
cracker_args* arg_struct = (cracker_args*) args;
md5hash* new_hash = malloc (sizeof(md5hash));
while(1)
{
char* password = fetch(arg_struct->in);
if(password == NULL )
{
deposit(arg_struct->out,NULL);
free(new_hash);
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
compute_hash(password,new_hash);
if(compare_hashes(new_hash,(md5hash**)arg_struct->hashes,arg_struct->num_hashes) != -1)
{
printf("VALID_PASS:%s \n",password);
deposit(arg_struct->out,password);
}else{
free(password);
}
}
}
This is a part of a program, where you get char* passwords from a ringbuffer, calculate md5 and compare them and push them into the next buffer if valid.
My problem is now, why can't I free those I don't need?
The whole program will stop if I try to and if I don't, I get memory leaks.
"You", and by this I mean your program, can only free() storage that was got from malloc()-and-friends, and only in the granularity it was got, and only once per chunk of storage.
In the code you show here, you're attempting to free() something got from fetch(). Since we can't see the definition of that function and you have not provided any documentation of it, our best guess is that
fetch() gives you a pointer to something other than a whole chunk
got from malloc()-et-al; and/or
some other part of the program not
shown here free()s the relevant chunk itself.
I'm seeing a memory leak with the following code:
while (true) {
console.log("Testing.");
}
I have tried defining the string and just using a constant, but it leaks memory, still:
var test = "Testing.";
while (true) {
console.log(test);
}
The same leak happens if I use a file instead of the standard log:
var test = "Testing.";
var fh = fs.createWriteStream("test.out", {flags: "a"});
while (true) {
fh.write(test);
}
I thought maybe it was because I wasn't properly closing the file, but I tried this and still saw the leak:
var test = "Testing";
while (true) {
var fh = fs.createWriteStream("test.out", {flags: "a"});
fh.end(test);
fh.destroy();
fh = null;
}
Does anyone have any hints as to how I'm supposed to write things without leaking memory?
This happens because you never give node a chance to handle "write successful" events, so they queue up endlessly. To give node a chance to handle them, you have to let the event loop do one iteration from time to time. This won't leak:
function newLine() {
console.log("Testing.");
process.nextTick(newLine);
}
newLine();
In real use cases, this is no issue because you nearly never have to write out so huge amounts of data at once that this matters. And if it does, cycle the event loop from time to time.
However, there's also a second issue with this that also occurs with the nextTick trick: Writing is async, and if the console/file/whatever is slower than node, node buffers data endlessly until the output is free again. To avoid this, you'll have to listen for the drain event after writing some stuff - it tells you when the pipe is free again. See here: http://nodejs.org/docs/latest/api/streams.html#event_drain_