虽然大多数答案都集中在真正的内存泄漏(这是不正确的，因为它们是草率编码的标志)，但这个问题的这一部分对我来说似乎更有趣:

如果分配一些内存并一直使用到应用程序中的最后一行代码(例如，全局对象的解构器)，会怎样?只要内存消耗不随时间增长，那么当应用程序终止时(在Windows、Mac和Linux上)，是否可以信任操作系统为您释放内存?如果内存一直被使用，直到被操作系统释放，您会认为这是真正的内存泄漏吗?

如果使用了相关的内存，则在程序结束之前不能释放它。释放是由程序退出还是由操作系统完成并不重要。只要有文档记录，这样更改就不会引入真正的内存泄漏，并且在图中不涉及c++析构函数或C清理函数。未关闭的文件可能通过泄漏的file对象显示，但缺少fclose()也可能导致缓冲区不被刷新。

所以，回到最初的情况，在我看来，它本身是完全OK的，以至于Valgrind，最强大的泄漏探测器之一，只会在要求时处理此类泄漏。在Valgrind上，当您覆盖一个指针而没有事先释放它时，它会被认为是内存泄漏，因为它更有可能再次发生，并导致堆无休止地增长。

然后，就没有仍然可以访问的nfreed内存块了。我们可以确保在出口释放所有人，但这本身就是浪费时间。关键是他们之前能不能被释放。降低内存消耗在任何情况下都是有用的。

Some great answers here. To add another perspective to this question, I'll address a case where memory leak is not only acceptable but desirable: in Windows drivers environment the developer provides a set of callbacks that are being run by the OS whenever required. One of the callbacks is a 'Shutdown' callback, which runs prior to system being shut off/restarted. Unlike standard situations, not only memory release is not necessary (system will be off in a moment), it's even discouraged - to make the shutdown as fast as possible and prevent the overhead of memory management.

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。

我只看到了一个实际的缺点，那就是这些良性泄漏将在内存泄漏检测工具中显示为误报。

If I understood correctly, you don't explicitly free memory (which can be freed because you still have a pointer) and rely on OS to free it during process termination. Though this may seem okay for simple program, consider the situation where your code is moved into a library and becomes a part of some resident daemon process running 24/7. Say this daemon spawns a thread each time it needs to do something useful using your code and say it spawns thousands of threads every hour. In this case you will get real memory leak.

不幸的是，这种情况在现实生活中并非不可能，一致的内存管理技术可能会使您的生活更轻松。

随着时间的推移，我看到的“良性”泄漏的数量一只手就能数得过来。

所以我的答案是肯定的。

An example. If you have a singleton resource that needs a buffer to store a circular queue or deque but doesn't know how big the buffer will need to be and can't afford the overhead of locking or every reader, then allocating an exponentially doubling buffer but not freeing the old ones will leak a bounded amount of memory per queue/deque. The benefit for these is they speed up every access dramatically and can change the asymptotics of multiprocessor solutions by never risking contention for a lock.

我已经看到这种方法在具有非常明确的固定计数的事情上有很大的好处，例如每cpu工作窃取deques，并且在Hans Boehm的C/ c++保守垃圾收集器中用于保存单例/proc/self/maps状态的缓冲区中有较小的程度，用于检测根集等。

虽然从技术上讲这是一个漏洞，但这两种情况在大小上都是有限制的，并且在可增长的循环工作窃取deque情况下，可以获得巨大的性能优势，以换取队列内存使用量增加2的有界因子。

I'm going to give the unpopular but practical answer that it's always wrong to free memory unless doing so will reduce the memory usage of your program. For instance a program that makes a single allocation or series of allocations to load the dataset it will use for its entire lifetime has no need to free anything. In the more common case of a large program with very dynamic memory requirements (think of a web browser), you should obviously free memory you're no longer using as soon as you can (for instance closing a tab/document/etc.), but there's no reason to free anything when the user selects clicks "exit", and doing so is actually harmful to the user experience.

为什么?释放内存需要接触内存。即使您的系统的malloc实现碰巧没有在分配的内存块附近存储元数据，您也可能会遍历递归结构，只是为了找到所有需要释放的指针。

Now, suppose your program has worked with a large volume of data, but hasn't touched most of it for a while (again, web browser is a great example). If the user is running a lot of apps, a good portion of that data has likely been swapped to disk. If you just exit(0) or return from main, it exits instantly. Great user experience. If you go to the trouble of trying to free everything, you may spend 5 seconds or more swapping all the data back in, only to throw it away immediately after that. Waste of user's time. Waste of laptop's battery life. Waste of wear on the hard disk.

这不仅仅是理论上的。每当我发现自己加载了太多的应用程序，磁盘开始抖动时，我甚至不会考虑点击“退出”。我以最快的速度到达一个终端，输入killall -9…因为我知道"退出"只会让情况更糟。