"creator_bob" <robertbrich***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144934399.699874.23660@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I decided to post here after a little incident where I got an effective
> memory leak that was immune from garbage collection.
>
> I created a simple binary tree, no balancing or deleting.  Only two
> functions from the root--update (add if missing), and read.  The
> problem was the update had a bug and after updating, it would always
> then add as though the item were missing.  This caused the tree to grow
> unbounded, but from all outward appearances, the program ran normal.
>
> Just pointing out that it is very easy to get an effective memory leak
> even with garbage collection.
>

"creator_bob" <robertbrich***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144968158.018421.305640@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jeff Dillon wrote:
>> I don't see this as a leak at all, but rather an error in logic? How
>> would
>> garbage collection catch this? It is assuming you needed those locations,
>> I
>> would assume.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
> My point is that even though memory leaks are all but impossible,
> faulty logic can still have the same effect as a leak and still not be
> detected.  I'm new here; this has probably been discussed many times.
> Note the word "effective".  I didn't say it was a leak.  My point is
> that programmers must still be vigilant and not think that things like
> this can't happen to them; there are ways to use up memory even with a
> garbage collector.
>