[...]
> My suspicion is that you have a problem with your destructors.
> Any object allocated by a constructor ,added to a list, things such
> float *x, etc must be deallocated in your destructors.
> A good way to look at memory leaks for objects is to use the
> statement:
> gObjecttable->Print();
> after every event and see how the list of objects grows.
> However this statement cannot spot leaks coming from the allocation
> of arrays of basic types.
[...]
Hello,
my problem is, that I cannot delete the pointers, since the objects do not
own the objects they point to. My test example is
----------------------------------------------------------------
class A: public TObject
{
public:
A(): p1( 0 ), p2( 0 );
A( A* a, A* b ): p1( a ), p2( b ) {}
~A();
A* p1;
A* p2;
void Print( Option_t * );
ClassDef(A,1)
};
----------------------------------------------------------------
in my main program:
----------------------------------------------------------------
[...]
A* x = new A;
A* y = new A( x, 0 );
A* z = new A( 0, x );
A* a = new A( y, z );
[...]
tree->Branch("Aname","A", &a, 10000, 0 );
[...]
----------------------------------------------------------------
when I read the event created by this, x is used by y and by z. So if I
delete p1 and p2 in ~A, I get a segmentation violation when z tries to
delete x because it has already been deleted by y. This might seem very
theoretical, but it just happens to be very similar to the structure I use
to store certain decay information.
My conclusion is, it would be great to have a garbage collection for such
things. ROOT maintains the additional objects correctly, I find them in
the gObjectTable. The only thing, which I cannot find, is a systematic
strategy to delete the objects, which have been created on the stack by
one TBranch::GetEvent.
Is there the possibility to let TBranch::GetEvent store the additional
object in a newly created table instead of the normal one, so that I can
delete them when I want?
best regards and thank you for the hints
Christoph