You have to first realize that there's a big difference between a perceived memory leak and an actual memory leak. Very frequently analysis tools will report many red herrings, and label something as having been leaked (memory or resources such as handles etc) where it actually isn't. Often times this is due to the analysis tool's architecture. For example, certain analysis tools will report run time objects as memory leaks because it never sees those object freed. But the deallocation occurs in the runtime's shutdown code, which the analysis tool might not be able to see.

尽管如此，仍然会有一些时候，您会遇到实际的内存泄漏，这些泄漏要么很难发现，要么很难修复。现在的问题是，是否可以将它们保留在代码中?

The ideal answer is, "no, never." A more pragmatic answer may be "no, almost never." Very often in real life you have limited number of resources and time to resolve and endless list of tasks. When one of the tasks is eliminating memory leaks, the law of diminishing returns very often comes in to play. You could eliminate say 98% of all memory leaks in an application in a week, but the remaining 2% might take months. In some cases it might even be impossible to eliminate certain leaks because of the application's architecture without a major refactoring of code. You have to weigh the costs and benefits of eliminating the remaining 2%.

在应用程序运行后清理操作系统在概念上没有问题。

这实际上取决于应用程序以及它将如何运行。在需要运行数周的应用程序中不断发生的泄漏必须得到处理，但是一个不需要太多内存就能计算结果的小工具应该不是问题。

许多脚本语言不垃圾收集循环引用是有原因的……对于它们的使用模式，这不是一个实际的问题，因此浪费的资源和浪费的内存一样多。

在程序的最后一行省略释放内存是完全可以接受的，因为释放它不会对任何事情产生影响，因为程序再也不需要内存了。

从历史上看，在某些边缘情况下，它在某些操作系统上确实很重要。这些边缘情况在未来可能会存在。

Here's an example, on SunOS in the Sun 3 era, there was an issue if a process used exec (or more traditionally fork and then exec), the subsequent new process would inherit the same memory footprint as the parent and it could not be shrunk. If a parent process allocated 1/2 gig of memory and didn't free it before calling exec, the child process would start using that same 1/2 gig (even though it wasn't allocated). This behavior was best exhibited by SunTools (their default windowing system), which was a memory hog. Every app that it spawned was created via fork/exec and inherited SunTools footprint, quickly filling up swap space.

一般情况下，如果遇到无法避免的内存泄漏，则需要更加认真地考虑对象所有权问题。

但对于你的问题，我的回答是在产品代码中，是的。在开发过程中，没有。这听起来可能有些倒退，但我的理由是:

In the situation you describe, where the memory is held until the end of the program, it's perfectly okay to not release it. Once your process exits, the OS will clean up anyway. In fact, it might make the user's experience better: In a game I've worked on, the programmers thought it would be cleaner to free all the memory before exiting, causing the shutdown of the program to take up to half a minute! A quick change that just called exit() instead made the process disappear immediately, and put the user back to the desktop where he wanted to be.

但是，您对调试工具的看法是正确的:它们会突然发作，而且所有的假阳性可能会使查找真正的内存泄漏变得很痛苦。正因为如此，总是编写释放内存的调试代码，并在发布时禁用它。

这实际上取决于创建内存泄漏的对象的使用情况。 如果在使用该对象的应用程序的生命周期内多次创建该对象，那么使用这种方式是不好的。因为会有很多内存泄漏。 另一方面，如果我们有一个对象的实例，不消耗内存，只泄漏少量，那么这不是一个问题。

当应用程序运行时内存泄漏增加时，内存泄漏就是一个问题。