<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<page xmlns="http://projectmallard.org/1.0/" xmlns:its="http://www.w3.org/2005/11/its" type="topic" id="memory-management" xml:lang="es">

  <info>
    <link type="guide" xref="index#general-guidelines"/>

    <credit type="author copyright">
      <name>Philip Withnall</name>
      <email its:translate="no">philip.withnall@collabora.co.uk</email>
      <years>2015</years>
    </credit>

    <include xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude" href="cc-by-sa-3-0.xml"/>

    <desc>Gestionar la reserva y la liberación de memoria en C</desc>
  
    <mal:credit xmlns:mal="http://projectmallard.org/1.0/" type="translator copyright">
      <mal:name>Daniel Mustieles</mal:name>
      <mal:email>daniel.mustieles@gmail.com</mal:email>
      <mal:years>2016-2020</mal:years>
    </mal:credit>
  
    <mal:credit xmlns:mal="http://projectmallard.org/1.0/" type="translator copyright">
      <mal:name>Javier Mazorra</mal:name>
      <mal:email>mazi.debian@gmail.com</mal:email>
      <mal:years>2016, 2020</mal:years>
    </mal:credit>
  </info>

  <title>Gestión de la memoria</title>

  <p>
    The GNOME stack is predominantly written in C, so dynamically allocated
    memory has to be managed manually. Through use of GLib convenience APIs,
    memory management can be trivial, but programmers always need to keep memory
    in mind when writing code.
  </p>

  <p>
    It is assumed that the reader is familiar with the idea of heap allocation
    of memory using <code>malloc()</code> and <code>free()</code>, and knows of
    the paired GLib equivalents, <code>g_malloc()</code> and
    <code>g_free()</code>.
  </p>

  <synopsis>
    <title>Resumen</title>

    <p>Hay tres situaciones que se deben evitar, en orden descendente de importancia:</p>

    <list type="numbered">
      <item><p>Usar la memoria después de liberar (usar-después-de-liberar).</p></item>
      <item><p>Usar memoria antes de reservarla.</p></item>
      <item><p>Not freeing memory after allocating it (leaking).</p></item>
    </list>

    <p>
      Key principles, in no particular order:
    </p>

    <list>
      <item><p>
        Determine and document whether each variable is owned or unowned. They
        must never change from one to the other at runtime.
        (<link xref="#principles"/>)
      </p></item>
      <item><p>
        Determine and document the ownership transfers at function boundaries.
        (<link xref="#principles"/>)
      </p></item>
      <item><p>
        Ensure that each assignment, function call and function return respects
        the relevant ownership transfers. (<link xref="#assignments"/>,
        <link xref="#function-calls"/>, <link xref="#function-returns"/>)
      </p></item>
      <item><p>
        Use reference counting rather than explicit finalization where possible.
        (<link xref="#reference-counting"/>)
      </p></item>
      <item><p>
        Use GLib convenience functions like
        <link xref="#g-clear-object"><code>g_clear_object()</code></link> where
        possible. (<link xref="#convenience-functions"/>)
      </p></item>
      <item><p>
        Do not split memory management across code paths.
        (<link xref="#principles"/>)
      </p></item>
      <item><p>
        Use the single-path cleanup pattern for large or complex functions.
        (<link xref="#single-path-cleanup"/>)
      </p></item>
      <item><p>
        Leaks should be checked for using Valgrind or the address sanitizer.
        (<link xref="#verification"/>)
      </p></item>
    </list>
  </synopsis>

  <section id="principles">
    <title>Principios de la gestión de la memoria</title>

    <p>
      The normal approach to memory management is for the programmer to keep
      track of which variables point to allocated memory, and to manually free
      them when they are no longer needed. This is correct, but can be clarified
      by introducing the concept of <em>ownership</em>, which is the piece of
      code (such as a function, struct or object) which is responsible for
      freeing a piece of allocated memory (an <em>allocation</em>). Each
      allocation has exactly one owner; this owner may change as the program
      runs, by <em>transferring</em> ownership to another piece of code. Each
      variable is <em>owned</em> or <em>unowned</em>, according to whether the
      scope containing it is always its owner. Each function parameter and
      return type either transfers ownership of the values passed to it, or it
      doesn’t. If code which owns some memory doesn’t deallocate that memory,
      that’s a memory leak. If code which doesn’t own some memory frees it,
      that’s a double-free. Both are bad.
    </p>

    <p>
      By statically calculating which variables are owned, memory
      management becomes a simple task of unconditionally freeing the owned
      variables before they leave their scope, and <em>not</em> freeing the
      unowned variables (see <link xref="#single-path-cleanup"/>). The key
      question to answer for all memory is: which code has ownership of this
      memory?
    </p>

    <p>
      There is an important restriction here: variables must
      <em style="strong">never</em> change from owned to unowned (or vice-versa)
      at runtime. This restriction is key to simplifying memory management.
    </p>

    <p>Por ejemplo, considere las funciones:</p>

    <code mime="text/x-csrc">gchar *generate_string (const gchar *template);
void print_string (const gchar *str);</code>

    <p>
      The following code has been annotated to note where the ownership
      transfers happen:
    </p>

    <code mime="text/x-csrc">gchar *my_str = NULL;  /* owned */
const gchar *template;  /* unowned */
GValue value = G_VALUE_INIT;  /* owned */
g_value_init (&amp;value, G_TYPE_STRING);

/* Transfers ownership of a string from the function to the variable. */
template = "XXXXXX";
my_str = generate_string (template);

/* No ownership transfer. */
print_string (my_str);

/* Transfer ownership. We no longer have to free @my_str. */
g_value_take_string (&amp;value, my_str);

/* We still have ownership of @value, so free it before it goes out of scope. */
g_value_unset (&amp;value);</code>

    <p>
      There are a few points here: Firstly, the ‘owned’ comments by the variable
      declarations denote that those variables are owned by the local scope, and
      hence need to be freed before they go out of scope. The alternative is
      ‘unowned’, which means the local scope does <em>not</em> have ownership,
      and <em>must not</em> free the variables before going out of scope.
      Similarly, ownership <em>must not</em> be transferred to them on
      assignment.
    </p>

    <p>
      Secondly, the variable type modifiers reflect whether they transfer
      ownership: because <code>my_str</code> is owned by the local scope, it has
      type <code>gchar</code>, whereas <code>template</code> is
      <code>const</code> to denote it is unowned. Similarly, the
      <code>template</code> parameter of <code>generate_string()</code> and the
      <code>str</code> parameter of <code>print_string()</code> are
      <code>const</code> because no ownership is transferred when those
      functions are called. As ownership <em>is</em> transferred for the string
      parameter of <code>g_value_take_string()</code>, we can expect its type to
      be <code>gchar</code>.
    </p>

    <p>
      (Note that this is not the case for
      <link href="https://developer.gnome.org/gobject/stable/gobject-The-Base-Object-Type.html">
      <code>GObject</code></link>s and subclasses, which can never be
      <code>const</code>. It is only the case for strings and simple
      <code>struct</code>s.)
    </p>

    <p>
      Finally, a few libraries use a function naming convention to indicate
      ownership transfer, for example using ‘take’ in a function name to
      indicate full transfer of parameters, as with
      <code>g_value_take_string()</code>. Note that different libraries use
      different conventions, as shown below:
    </p>

    <table shade="rows cols">
      <colgroup><col/></colgroup>
      <colgroup><col/><col/><col/></colgroup>
      <thead>
        <tr>
          <td><p>Nombre de la función</p></td>
          <td><p>Convenio 1 (estándar)</p></td>
          <td><p>Convenio 2 (alternativo)</p></td> <!-- get for everything -->
          <td><p>Convenio 3 (<cmd>gdbus-codegen</cmd>)</p></td>
        </tr>
      </thead>
      <tbody>
        <tr>
          <td><p>get</p></td>
          <td><p>No transfer</p></td>
          <td><p>Any transfer</p></td>
          <td><p>Full transfer</p></td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td><p>dup</p></td>
          <td><p>Full transfer</p></td>
          <td><p>No usado</p></td>
          <td><p>No usado</p></td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td><p>peek</p></td>
          <td><p>No usado</p></td>
          <td><p>No usado</p></td>
          <td><p>No transfer</p></td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td><p>set</p></td>
          <td><p>No transfer</p></td>
          <td><p>No transfer</p></td>
          <td><p>No transfer</p></td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td><p>take</p></td>
          <td><p>Full transfer</p></td>
          <td><p>No usado</p></td>
          <td><p>No usado</p></td>
        </tr>

        <tr>
          <td><p>steal</p></td>
          <td><p>Full transfer</p></td>
          <td><p>Full transfer</p></td>
          <td><p>Full transfer</p></td>
        </tr>
      </tbody>
    </table>

    <p>
      Ideally, all functions have a <code>(transfer)</code>
      <link xref="introspection">introspection annotation</link> for all
      relevant parameters and the return value. Failing that, here is a set of
      guidelines to use to determine whether ownership of a return value is
      transferred:
    </p>
    <steps>
      <item><p>
        If the type has an introspection <code>(transfer)</code> annotation,
        look at that.
      </p></item>
      <item><p>
        Otherwise, if the type is <code>const</code>, there is no transfer.
      </p></item>
      <item><p>
        Otherwise, if the function documentation explicitly specifies the return
        value must be freed, there is full or container transfer.
      </p></item>
      <item><p>
        Otherwise, if the function is named ‘dup’, ‘take’ or ‘steal’, there is
        full or container transfer.
      </p></item>
      <item><p>
        Otherwise, if the function is named ‘peek’, there is no transfer.
      </p></item>
      <item><p>
        Otherwise, you need to look at the function’s code to determine whether
        it intends ownership to be transferred. Then file a bug against the
        documentation for that function, and ask for an introspection annotation
        to be added.
      </p></item>
    </steps>

    <p>
      Given this ownership and transfer infrastructure, the correct approach to
      memory allocation can be mechanically determined for each situation. In
      each case, the <code>copy()</code> function must be appropriate to the
      data type, for example <code>g_strdup()</code> for strings, or
      <code>g_object_ref()</code> for GObjects.
    </p>

    <p>
      When thinking about ownership transfer,
      <code>malloc()</code>/<code>free()</code> and reference counting are
      equivalent: in the former case, a newly allocated piece of heap memory is
      transferred; in the latter, a newly incremented reference.
      See <link xref="#reference-counting"/>.
    </p>

    <section id="assignments">
      <title>Asignaciones</title>

      <table shade="rows colgroups">
        <colgroup><col/></colgroup>
        <colgroup><col/><col/></colgroup>
        <thead>
          <tr>
            <td><p>Assignment from/to</p></td>
            <td><p>Owned destination</p></td>
            <td><p>Unowned destination</p></td>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>

          <tr>
            <td><p>Owned source</p></td>
            <td>
              <p>Copiar o mover la fuente al destino.</p>
              <code>owned_dest = copy (owned_src)</code>
              <code>owned_dest = owned_src; owned_src = NULL</code>
            </td>
            <td>
              <p>
                Pure assignment, assuming the unowned variable is not used after
                the owned one is freed.
              </p>
              <code>unowned_dest = owned_src</code>
            </td>
          </tr>

          <tr>
            <td><p>Unowned source</p></td>
            <td>
              <p>Copiar la fuente en el destino.</p>
              <code>owned_dest = copy (unowned_src)</code>
            </td>
            <td>
              <p>Asignación pura.</p>
              <code>unowned_dest = unowned_src</code>
            </td>
          </tr>
        </tbody>
      </table>
    </section>

    <section id="function-calls">
      <title>Llamadas a funciones</title>

      <table shade="rows colgroups">
        <colgroup><col/></colgroup>
        <colgroup><col/><col/></colgroup>
        <thead>
          <tr>
            <td><p>Call from/to</p></td>
            <td><p>Transfer full parameter</p></td>
            <td><p>Transfer none parameter</p></td>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>

          <tr>
            <td><p>Owned source</p></td>
            <td>
              <p>
                Copy or move the source for the parameter.
              </p>
              <code>function_call (copy (owned_src))</code>
              <code>function_call (owned_src); owned_src = NULL</code>
            </td>
            <td>
              <p>
                Pure parameter passing.
              </p>
              <code>function_call (owned_src)</code>
            </td>
          </tr>

          <tr>
            <td><p>Unowned source</p></td>
            <td>
              <p>Copy the source for the parameter.</p>
              <code>function_call (copy (unowned_src))</code>
            </td>
            <td>
              <p>Pure parameter passing.</p>
              <code>function_call (unowned_src)</code>
            </td>
          </tr>
        </tbody>
      </table>
    </section>

    <section id="function-returns">
      <title>Retornos de funciones</title>

      <table shade="rows colgroups">
        <colgroup><col/></colgroup>
        <colgroup><col/><col/></colgroup>
        <thead>
          <tr>
            <td><p>Return from/to</p></td>
            <td><p>Transfer full return</p></td>
            <td><p>Transfer none return</p></td>
          </tr>
        </thead>
        <tbody>

          <tr>
            <td><p>Owned source</p></td>
            <td>
              <p>
                Pure variable return.
              </p>
              <code>return owned_src</code>
            </td>
            <td>
              <p>
                Invalid. The source needs to be freed, so the return value would
                use freed memory — a use-after-free error.
              </p>
            </td>
          </tr>

          <tr>
            <td><p>Unowned source</p></td>
            <td>
              <p>Copy the source for the return.</p>
              <code>return copy (unowned_src)</code>
            </td>
            <td>
              <p>Asignación de variables pura.</p>
              <code>return unowned_src</code>
            </td>
          </tr>
        </tbody>
      </table>
    </section>
  </section>

  <section id="documentation">
    <title>Documentación</title>

    <p>
      Documenting the ownership transfer for each function parameter and return,
      and the ownership for each variable, is important. While they may be clear
      when writing the code, they are not clear a few months later; and may
      never be clear to users of an API. They should always be documented.
    </p>

    <p>
      The best way to document ownership transfer is to use the
      <link href="https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/GObjectIntrospection/Annotations#Memory_and_lifecycle_management">
      <code>(transfer)</code></link> annotation introduced by
      <link xref="introspection">gobject-introspection</link>. Include this in
      the API documentation comment for each function parameter and return type.
      If a function is not public API, write a documentation comment for it
      anyway and include the <code>(transfer)</code> annotations. By doing so,
      the introspection tools can also read the annotations and use them to
      correctly introspect the API.
    </p>

    <p>Por ejemplo:</p>
    <code mime="text/x-csrc">/**
 * g_value_take_string:
 * @value: (transfer none): an initialized #GValue
 * @str: (transfer full): string to set it to
 *
 * Function documentation goes here.
 */

/**
 * generate_string:
 * @template: (transfer none): a template to follow when generating the string
 *
 * Function documentation goes here.
 *
 * Returns: (transfer full): a newly generated string
 */</code>

    <p>La propiedad de las variables se puede documentar mediante comentarios en línea. Estos no son estándar y no se leen por ninguna herramienta, pero pueden formar un convenio si se usan de manera consistente.</p>
    <code mime="text/x-csrc">GObject *some_owned_object = NULL;  /* owned */
GObject *some_unowned_object;  /* unowned */</code>

    <p>
      The documentation for <link xref="#container-types"/> is similarly only a
      convention; it includes the type of the contained elements too:
    </p>
    <code mime="text/x-csrc">GPtrArray/*&lt;owned gchar*&gt;*/ *some_unowned_string_array;  /* unowned */
GPtrArray/*&lt;owned gchar*&gt;*/ *some_owned_string_array = NULL;  /* owned */
GPtrArray/*&lt;unowned GObject*&gt;*/ *some_owned_object_array = NULL;  /* owned */</code>

    <p>
      Note also that owned variables should always be initialized so that
      freeing them is more convenient. See
      <link xref="#convenience-functions"/>.
    </p>

    <p>
      Also note that some types, for example basic C types like strings, can
      have the <code>const</code> modifier added if they are unowned, to take
      advantage of compiler warnings resulting from assigning those variables to
      owned variables (which must <em>not</em> use the <code>const</code>
      modifier). If so, the <code>/* unowned */</code> comment may be omitted.
    </p>
  </section>

  <section id="reference-counting">
    <title>Reference Counting</title>

    <p>
      As well as conventional <code>malloc()</code>/<code>free()</code>-style
      types, GLib has various reference counted types —
      <link href="https://developer.gnome.org/gobject/stable/gobject-The-Base-Object-Type.html">
      <code>GObject</code></link> being a prime example.
    </p>

    <p>
      The concepts of ownership and transfer apply just as well to reference
      counted types as they do to allocated types. A scope <em>owns</em> a
      reference counted type if it holds a strong reference to the instance
      (for example by calling
      <link href="https://developer.gnome.org/gobject/stable/gobject-The-Base-Object-Type.html#g-object-ref">
      <code>g_object_ref()</code></link>). An instance can be ‘copied’ by
      calling <code>g_object_ref()</code> again. Ownership can be freed with
      <link href="https://developer.gnome.org/gobject/stable/gobject-The-Base-Object-Type.html#g-object-unref">
      <code>g_object_unref()</code></link> — even though this may not actually
      finalize the instance, it frees the current scope’s ownership of that
      instance.
    </p>

    <p>
      See <link xref="#g-clear-object"/> for a convenient way of handling
      GObject references.
    </p>

    <p>
      There are other reference counted types in GLib, such as
      <link href="https://developer.gnome.org/glib/stable/glib-Hash-Tables.html">
      <code>GHashTable</code></link> (using
      <link href="https://developer.gnome.org/glib/stable/glib-Hash-Tables.html#g-hash-table-ref">
      <code>g_hash_table_ref()</code></link> and
      <link href="https://developer.gnome.org/glib/stable/glib-Hash-Tables.html#g-hash-table-unref">
      <code>g_hash_table_unref()</code></link>), or
      <link href="https://developer.gnome.org/glib/stable/glib-GVariant.html">
      <code>GVariant</code></link>
      (<link href="https://developer.gnome.org/glib/stable/glib-GVariant.html#g-variant-ref">
      <code>g_variant_ref()</code></link>,
      <link href="https://developer.gnome.org/glib/stable/glib-GVariant.html#g-variant-unref">
      <code>g_variant_unref()</code></link>). Some types, like
      <code>GHashTable</code>, support both reference counting and explicit
      finalization. Reference counting should always be used in preference,
      because it allows instances to be easily shared between multiple scopes
      (each holding their own reference) without having to allocate multiple
      copies of the instance. This saves memory.
    </p>

    <section id="floating-references">
      <title>Referencias flotantes</title>

      <p>
        Classes which are derived from
        <link href="https://developer.gnome.org/gobject/stable/gobject-The-Base-Object-Type.html#GInitiallyUnowned"><code>GInitiallyUnowned</code></link>,
        as opposed to
        <link href="https://developer.gnome.org/gobject/stable/gobject-The-Base-Object-Type.html#GObject-struct"><code>GObject</code></link>
        have an initial reference which is <em>floating</em>, meaning that no
        code owns the reference. As soon as
        <link href="https://developer.gnome.org/gobject/stable/gobject-The-Base-Object-Type.html#g-object-ref-sink"><code>g_object_ref_sink()</code></link>
        is called on the object, the floating reference is converted to a strong
        reference, and the calling code assumes ownership of the object.
      </p>

      <p>
        Floating references are a convenience for use in C in APIs, such as
        GTK+, where large numbers of objects must be created and organized into
        a hierarchy. In these cases, calling <code>g_object_unref()</code> to
        drop all the strong references would result in a lot of code.
      </p>

      <example>
        <p>Las referencias flotantes permiten simplificar el siguiente código:</p>
        <code mime="text/x-csrc" style="invalid">GtkWidget *new_widget;

new_widget = gtk_some_widget_new ();
gtk_container_add (some_container, new_widget);
g_object_unref (new_widget);</code>

        <p>
          Instead, the following code can be used, with the
          <code>GtkContainer</code> assuming ownership of the floating
          reference:
        </p>
        <code mime="text/x-csrc" style="valid">
gtk_container_add (some_container, gtk_some_widget_new ());</code>
      </example>

      <p>
        Floating references are only used by a few APIs — in particular,
        <code>GtkWidget</code> and all its subclasses. You must learn which APIs
        support it, and which APIs consume floating references, and only use
        them together.
      </p>

      <p>
        Note that <code>g_object_ref_sink()</code> is equivalent to
        <code>g_object_ref()</code> when called on a non-floating reference,
        making <code>gtk_container_add()</code> no different from any other
        function in such cases.
      </p>

      <p>
        See the <link href="https://developer.gnome.org/gobject/stable/gobject-The-Base-Object-Type.html#floating-ref">GObject
        manual</link> for more information on floating references.
      </p>
    </section>
  </section>

  <section id="convenience-functions">
    <title>Funciones de conveniencia</title>

    <p>
      GLib provides various convenience functions for memory management,
      especially for GObjects. Three will be covered here, but others exist —
      check the GLib API documentation for more. They typically follow similar
      naming schemas to these three (using ‘_full’ suffixes, or the verb ‘clear’
      in the function name).
    </p>

    <section id="g-clear-object">
      <title><code>g_clear_object()</code></title>

      <p>
        <link href="https://developer.gnome.org/gobject/stable/gobject-The-Base-Object-Type.html#g-clear-object">
        <code>g_clear_object()</code></link> is a version of
        <link href="https://developer.gnome.org/gobject/stable/gobject-The-Base-Object-Type.html#g-object-unref">
        <code>g_object_unref()</code></link> which unrefs a GObject and then
        clears the pointer to it to <code>NULL</code>.
      </p>

      <p>
        This makes it easier to implement code that guarantees a GObject pointer
        is always either <code>NULL</code>, or has ownership of a GObject (but
        which never points to a GObject it no longer owns).
      </p>

      <p>
        By initialising all owned GObject pointers to <code>NULL</code>, freeing
        them at the end of the scope is as simple as calling
        <code>g_clear_object()</code> without any checks, as discussed in
        <link xref="#single-path-cleanup"/>:
      </p>
      <code mime="text/x-csrc" style="valid">void
my_function (void)
{
  GObject *some_object = NULL;  /* owned */

  if (rand ())
    {
      some_object = create_new_object ();
      /* do something with the object */
    }

  g_clear_object (&amp;some_object);
}</code>
    </section>

    <section id="g-list-free-full">
      <title><code>g_list_free_full()</code></title>

      <p>
        <link href="https://developer.gnome.org/glib/stable/glib-Doubly-Linked-Lists.html#g-list-free-full">
        <code>g_list_free_full()</code></link> frees all the elements in a
        linked list, <em>and all their data</em>. It is much more convenient
        than iterating through the list to free all the elements’ data, then
        calling <link href="https://developer.gnome.org/glib/stable/glib-Doubly-Linked-Lists.html#g-list-free">
        <code>g_list_free()</code></link> to free the <code>GList</code>
        elements themselves.
      </p>
    </section>

    <section id="g-hash-table-new-full">
      <title><code>g_hash_table_new_full()</code></title>

      <p>
        <link href="https://developer.gnome.org/glib/stable/glib-Hash-Tables.html#g-hash-table-new-full">
        <code>g_hash_table_new_full()</code></link> is a newer version of
        <link href="https://developer.gnome.org/glib/stable/glib-Hash-Tables.html#g-hash-table-new">
        <code>g_hash_table_new()</code></link> which allows setting functions to
        destroy each key and value in the hash table when they are removed.
        These functions are then automatically called for all keys and values
        when the hash table is destroyed, or when an entry is removed using
        <code>g_hash_table_remove()</code>.
      </p>

      <p>
        Essentially, it simplifies memory management of keys and values to the
        question of whether they are present in the hash table. See
        <link xref="#container-types"/> for a discussion on ownership of
        elements within container types.
      </p>

      <p>
        A similar function exists for <code>GPtrArray</code>:
        <link href="https://developer.gnome.org/glib/stable/glib-Pointer-Arrays.html#g-ptr-array-new-with-free-func">
        <code>g_ptr_array_new_with_free_func()</code></link>.
      </p>
    </section>
  </section>

  <section id="container-types">
    <title>Tipos de contenedores</title>

    <p>
      When using container types, such as <code>GPtrArray</code> or
      <code>GList</code>, an additional level of ownership is introduced: as
      well as the ownership of the container instance, each element in the
      container is either owned or unowned too. By nesting containers, multiple
      levels of ownership must be tracked. Ownership of owned elements belongs
      to the container; ownership of the container belongs to the scope it’s in
      (which may be another container).
    </p>

    <p>
      A key principle for simplifying this is to ensure that all elements in a
      container have the same ownership: they are either all owned, or all
      unowned. This happens automatically if the normal
      <link xref="#convenience-functions"/> are used for types like
      <code>GPtrArray</code> and <code>GHashTable</code>.
    </p>

    <p>
      If elements in a container are <em>owned</em>, adding them to the
      container is essentially an ownership transfer. For example, for an array
      of strings, if the elements are owned, the definition of
      <code>g_ptr_array_add()</code> is effectively:
    </p>
    <code mime="text/x-csrc">/**
 * g_ptr_array_add:
 * @array: a #GPtrArray
 * @str: (transfer full): string to add
 */
void
g_ptr_array_add (GPtrArray *array,
                 gchar     *str);</code>

    <p>
      So, for example, constant (unowned) strings must be added to the array
      using <code>g_ptr_array_add (array, g_strdup ("constant string"))</code>.
    </p>

    <p>
      Whereas if the elements are unowned, the definition is effectively:
    </p>
    <code mime="text/x-csrc">/**
 * g_ptr_array_add:
 * @array: a #GPtrArray
 * @str: (transfer none): string to add
 */
void
g_ptr_array_add (GPtrArray   *array,
                 const gchar *str);</code>

    <p>
      Here, constant strings can be added without copying them:
      <code>g_ptr_array_add (array, "constant string")</code>.
    </p>

    <p>
      See <link xref="#documentation"/> for examples of comments to add to
      variable definitions to annotate them with the element type and ownership.
    </p>
  </section>

  <section id="single-path-cleanup">
    <title>Single-Path Cleanup</title>

    <p>
      A useful design pattern for more complex functions is to have a single
      control path which cleans up (frees) allocations and returns to the
      caller. This vastly simplifies tracking of allocations, as it’s no longer
      necessary to mentally work out which allocations have been freed on each
      code path — all code paths end at the same point, so perform all the frees
      then. The benefits of this approach rapidly become greater for larger
      functions with more owned local variables; it may not make sense to apply
      the pattern to smaller functions.
    </p>

    <p>
      This approach has two requirements:
    </p>
    <list type="numbered">
      <item><p>
        The function returns from a single point, and uses <code>goto</code> to
        reach that point from other paths.
      </p></item>
      <item><p>
        All owned variables are set to <code>NULL</code> when initialized or
        when ownership is transferred away from them.
      </p></item>
    </list>

    <p>
      The example below is for a small function (for brevity), but should
      illustrate the principles for application of the pattern to larger
      functions:
    </p>

    <listing>
      <title>Single-Path Cleanup Example</title>
      <desc>
        Example of implementing single-path cleanup for a simple function
      </desc>
      <code mime="text/x-csrc">GObject *
some_function (GError **error)
{
  gchar *some_str = NULL;  /* owned */
  GObject *temp_object = NULL;  /* owned */
  const gchar *temp_str;
  GObject *my_object = NULL;  /* owned */
  GError *child_error = NULL;  /* owned */

  temp_object = generate_object ();
  temp_str = "example string";

  if (rand ())
    {
      some_str = g_strconcat (temp_str, temp_str, NULL);
    }
  else
    {
      some_operation_which_might_fail (&amp;child_error);

      if (child_error != NULL)
        {
          goto done;
        }

      my_object = generate_wrapped_object (temp_object);
    }

done:
  /* Here, @some_str is either NULL or a string to be freed, so can be passed to
   * g_free() unconditionally.
   *
   * Similarly, @temp_object is either NULL or an object to be unreffed, so can
   * be passed to g_clear_object() unconditionally. */
  g_free (some_str);
  g_clear_object (&amp;temp_object);

  /* The pattern can also be used to ensure that the function always returns
   * either an error or a return value (but never both). */
  if (child_error != NULL)
    {
      g_propagate_error (error, child_error);
      g_clear_object (&amp;my_object);
    }

  return my_object;
}</code>
    </listing>
  </section>

  <section id="verification">
    <title>Verificación</title>

    <p>
      Memory leaks can be checked for in two ways: static analysis, and runtime
      leak checking.
    </p>

    <p>
      Static analysis with tools like
      <link xref="tooling#coverity">Coverity</link>, the
      <link xref="tooling#clang-static-analyzer">Clang static analyzer</link> or
      <link xref="tooling#tartan">Tartan</link> can
      catch some leaks, but require knowledge of the ownership transfer of every
      function called in the code. Domain-specific static analyzers like Tartan
      (which knows about GLib memory allocation and transfer) can perform better
      here, but Tartan is quite a young project and still misses things (a low
      true positive rate). It is recommended that code be put through a static
      analyzer, but the primary tool for detecting leaks should be runtime leak
      checking.
    </p>

    <p>
      Runtime leak checking is done using
      <link xref="tooling#valgrind">Valgrind</link>, using its
      <link xref="tooling#memcheck">memcheck</link> tool. Any leak it detects as
      ‘definitely losing memory’ should be fixed. Many of the leaks which
      ‘potentially’ lose memory are not real leaks, and should be added to the
      suppression file.
    </p>

    <p>
      If compiling with a recent version of Clang or GCC, the
      <link xref="tooling#address-sanitizer">address sanitizer</link> can be
      enabled instead, and it will detect memory leaks and overflow problems at
      runtime, but without the difficulty of running Valgrind in the right
      environment. Note, however, that it is still a young tool, so may fail in
      some cases.
    </p>

    <p>
      See <link xref="tooling#valgrind"/> for more information on using
      Valgrind.
    </p>
  </section>
</page>
