Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 753445
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 14, 20262026-05-14T14:53:52+00:00 2026-05-14T14:53:52+00:00

Unfortunately the solutions have not worked yet; setting result.values pointer to 0 doesn’t actually

  • 0

Unfortunately the solutions have not worked yet; setting result.values pointer to 0 doesn’t actually relieve the memory usage. I’ve also tried free(result.values) in place of that, but that is not desired as that deletes my string.

Edit 2: I’ll try writing a stack destructor.

Edit 3: Gotcha. Thanks DeadMG, writing a destructor that free(values) did the trick perfectly! Wow… so simple.

In my Unicode library for C++, the ustring class has operator= functions set for char* values and other ustring values. When doing the simple memory leak test:

#include <cstdio>
#include "ucpp"
main() {
  ustring a;
  for(;;)a="MEMORY";
}

the memory used by the program grows uncontrollably (characteristic of a program with a big memory leak) even though I’ve added free() calls to both of the functions. I am unsure why this is ineffective (am I missing free() calls in other places?)

This is the current library code:

#include <cstdlib>
#include <cstring>
class ustring {
  int * values;
  long len;
  public:
  long length() {
    return len;
  }
  ustring() {
    len = 0;
    values = (int *) malloc(0);
  }
  ustring(const ustring &input) {
    len = input.len;
    values = (int *) malloc(sizeof(int) * len);
    for (long i = 0; i < len; i++)
      values[i] = input.values[i];
  }
  ustring operator=(ustring input) {
    ustring result(input);
    free(values);
    len = input.len;
    values = input.values;
    return * this;
  }
  ustring(const char * input) {
    values = (int *) malloc(0);
    long s = 0;                                                                 // s = number of parsed chars
    int a, b, c, d, contNeed = 0, cont = 0;
    for (long i = 0; input[i]; i++)
      if (input[i] < 0x80) {                                                    // ASCII, direct copy (00-7f)
        values = (int *) realloc(values, sizeof(int) * ++s);
        values[s - 1] = input[i];
      } else if (input[i] < 0xc0) {                                             // this is a continuation (80-bf)
        if (cont == contNeed) {                                                 // no need for continuation, use U+fffd
          values = (int *) realloc(values, sizeof(int) * ++s);
          values[s - 1] = 0xfffd;
        }
        cont = cont + 1;
        values[s - 1] = values[s - 1] | ((input[i] & 0x3f) << ((contNeed - cont) * 6));
        if (cont == contNeed) cont = contNeed = 0;
      } else if (input[i] < 0xc2) {                                             // invalid byte, use U+fffd (c0-c1)
        values = (int *) realloc(values, sizeof(int) * ++s);
        values[s - 1] = 0xfffd;
      } else if (input[i] < 0xe0) {                                             // start of 2-byte sequence (c2-df)
        contNeed = 1;
        values = (int *) realloc(values, sizeof(int) * ++s);
        values[s - 1] = (input[i] & 0x1f) << 6;
      } else if (input[i] < 0xf0) {                                             // start of 3-byte sequence (e0-ef)
        contNeed = 2;
        values = (int *) realloc(values, sizeof(int) * ++s);
        values[s - 1] = (input[i] & 0x0f) << 12;
      } else if (input[i] < 0xf5) {                                             // start of 4-byte sequence (f0-f4)
        contNeed = 3;
        values = (int *) realloc(values, sizeof(int) * ++s);
        values[s - 1] = (input[i] & 0x07) << 18;
      } else {                                                                  // restricted or invalid (f5-ff)
        values = (int *) realloc(values, sizeof(int) * ++s);
        values[s - 1] = 0xfffd;
      }
    len = s;
  }
  ustring operator=(const char * input) {
    ustring result(input);
    free(values);
    len = result.len;
    values = result.values;
    return * this;
  }
  ustring operator+(ustring input) {
    ustring result;
    result.len = len + input.len;
    result.values = (int *) malloc(sizeof(int) * result.len);
    for (long i = 0; i < len; i++)
      result.values[i] = values[i];
    for (long i = 0; i < input.len; i++)
      result.values[i + len] = input.values[i];
    return result;
  }
  ustring operator[](long index) {
    ustring result;
    result.len = 1;
    result.values = (int *) malloc(sizeof(int));
    result.values[0] = values[index];
    return result;
  }
  operator char * () {
    return this -> encode();
  }
  char * encode() {
    char * r = (char *) malloc(0);
    long s = 0;
    for (long i = 0; i < len; i++) {
      if (values[i] < 0x80)
        r = (char *) realloc(r, s + 1),
        r[s + 0] = char(values[i]),
        s += 1;
      else if (values[i] < 0x800)
        r = (char *) realloc(r, s + 2),
        r[s + 0] = char(values[i] >> 6 | 0x60),
        r[s + 1] = char(values[i] & 0x3f | 0x80),
        s += 2;
      else if (values[i] < 0x10000)
        r = (char *) realloc(r, s + 3),
        r[s + 0] = char(values[i] >> 12 | 0xe0),
        r[s + 1] = char(values[i] >> 6 & 0x3f | 0x80),
        r[s + 2] = char(values[i] & 0x3f | 0x80),
        s += 3;
      else
        r = (char *) realloc(r, s + 4),
        r[s + 0] = char(values[i] >> 18 | 0xf0),
        r[s + 1] = char(values[i] >> 12 & 0x3f | 0x80),
        r[s + 2] = char(values[i] >> 6 & 0x3f | 0x80),
        r[s + 3] = char(values[i] & 0x3f | 0x80),
        s += 4;
    }
    return r;
  }
};
  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-14T14:53:53+00:00Added an answer on May 14, 2026 at 2:53 pm

    Basically, you create far too many ustrings, you need a LOT more references, and you didn’t implement a destructor so when they all fall off the stack, they don’t get freed.

    Also, when in your assignment operator, you need to set result.values to NULL, else the memory will be deleted. You could use a move operator to make this a nice fast operation, although I still don’t understand why you would.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Ask A Question

Stats

  • Questions 439k
  • Answers 439k
  • Best Answers 0
  • User 1
  • Popular
  • Answers
  • Editorial Team

    How to approach applying for a job at a company ...

    • 7 Answers
  • Editorial Team

    What is a programmer’s life like?

    • 5 Answers
  • Editorial Team

    How to handle personal stress caused by utterly incompetent and ...

    • 5 Answers
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer You need to set a boolean flag in your Info.plist… May 15, 2026 at 4:54 pm
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer No, it does not require a restart. May 15, 2026 at 4:54 pm
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer Silverlight has an IsolatedStorage API as well - you can… May 15, 2026 at 4:54 pm

Trending Tags

analytics british company computer developers django employee employer english facebook french google interview javascript language life php programmer programs salary

Top Members

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.