If you're linking against liblldb you can't rely on the os cleaning up because you could unload liblldb before shutting down the process.
Also it's good practice to do explicit cleanup since its not always just a simple matter of releasing resources, sometimes actual shutdown code needs to be interspersed with the cleanup On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 3:15 PM Kate Stone via lldb-dev < lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Greg Clayton will almost certainly want to weigh in here when he returns > next week. Generally speaking, we’ve had a long tail of issues that only > show up during teardown that we’re avoiding. Leaking resources that will > be reclaimed by the OS when the process terminates is a non-issue. If > there are specific scenarios where a long-lived process leaks significant > content that isn’t an effective cache for subsequent use, please outline > how that manifests. > > Kate Stone k8st...@apple.com > Xcode Low Level Tools > > On Aug 1, 2016, at 2:40 PM, Vedant Kumar via lldb-dev < > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi lldb-dev, > > It looks like the debugger initializes static variables in llvm (see: > SystemInitializerFull::Initialize()), but, AFAICT, it never cleans them up. > > Does this cause memory leaks? I'd assumed that it's necessary to call > llvm_shutdown() somewhere to avoid this kind of leak. > > Is there a buildbot I can check that tests an address-sanitized version of > lldb? > > thanks, > vedant > > _______________________________________________ > lldb-dev mailing list > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > lldb-dev mailing list > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev >
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
