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%.

除非“使用”的内存量不断增长，否则我不认为这是内存泄漏。有一些未释放的内存，虽然不是理想的，但不是一个大问题，除非所需的内存数量不断增长。

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。

如果你在程序开始时分配了一堆内存，但退出时没有释放它，这本身并不是内存泄漏。内存泄漏是指当程序循环遍历一段代码时，该代码分配堆，然后在没有释放它的情况下“失去跟踪”。

事实上，在退出之前不需要调用free()或delete。当进程退出时，它的所有内存都被操作系统回收(POSIX当然就是这种情况。在其他操作系统上-特别是嵌入式的- YMMV)。

对于退出时不释放内存，我唯一要注意的是，如果你重构了你的程序，例如，它变成了一个等待输入的服务，做你的程序所做的任何事情，然后循环等待另一个服务调用，那么你所编写的代码可能会变成内存泄漏。

我想你已经回答了自己的问题。最大的缺点是它们如何干扰内存泄漏检测工具，但我认为这个缺点对于某些类型的应用程序来说是一个巨大的缺点。

我使用的遗留服务器应用程序应该是坚如磐石的，但它们有泄漏，并且全局变量确实妨碍了内存检测工具。这是件大事。

在杰瑞德·戴蒙德(Jared Diamond)的《崩塌》(Collapse)一书中，作者想知道那个人在想什么，他砍倒了复活节岛上的最后一棵树，而这棵树是他建造独木舟离开该岛所需要的。我想知道许多年前第一个全局变量被添加到我们的代码库的那一天。那是它应该被抓住的日子。