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.

我很惊讶看到这么多关于内存泄漏的错误定义。如果没有一个具体的定义，关于它是否是坏事的讨论就不会有任何结果。

正如一些评论员正确地指出的那样，只有当进程分配的内存超出作用域，以至于该进程不再能够引用或删除它时，才会发生内存泄漏。

A process which is grabbing more and more memory is not necessarily leaking. So long as it is able to reference and deallocate that memory, then it remains under the explicit control of the process and has not leaked. The process may well be badly designed, especially in the context of a system where memory is limited, but this is not the same as a leak. Conversely, losing scope of, say, a 32 byte buffer is still a leak, even though the amount of memory leaked is small. If you think this is insignificant, wait until someone wraps an algorithm around your library call and calls it 10,000 times.

我认为没有任何理由允许在您自己的代码中泄漏，无论多么小。现代编程语言，如C和c++，不遗余力地帮助程序员防止此类泄漏，并且很少有好的理由不采用好的编程技术——特别是在与特定的语言功能相结合时——来防止泄漏。

对于现有的或第三方代码，您对质量的控制或进行更改的能力可能非常有限，这取决于泄漏的严重程度，您可能被迫接受或采取缓解措施，例如定期重新启动进程以减少泄漏的影响。

更改或替换现有的(泄漏的)代码可能是不可能的，因此您可能不得不接受它。然而，这并不等同于宣称它是OK的。

也许是在细枝末节:如果您的应用程序运行在UNIX上，可能会变成僵尸怎么办?在这种情况下，内存不会被操作系统回收。所以我说你应该在程序退出之前重新分配内存。

我在高中上过一门C课，老师说当你malloc的时候一定要确保自由。

但是当我在大学里上另一门课的时候，教授说对那些只运行一秒钟的小程序不免费是可以的。 因此，我认为这不会损害您的程序，但免费提供强大、健康的代码是一种很好的实践。

即使您确定“已知的”内存泄漏不会造成严重破坏，也不要这样做。在最好的情况下，它会为你在不同的时间和地点犯下类似的、可能更严重的错误铺平道路。

对我来说，问这个问题就像问“我可以在凌晨3点没有人的时候闯红灯吗?”当然，在那个时候它可能不会造成任何麻烦，但它将为你在高峰时间做同样的事情提供一个杠杆!

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%.