address() class use causes memory leak

[caffeineinfused]

creating new instances of the address class for passing around addresses causes memory leaks due to used, no-longer-referenced, and not deleted address instances

address class should likely be converted to a static class with static method for convenient address calculations given cache parameters, with no actual instances of address class

[tmsimont]

Are you sure about this?

I ran with this trace: https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~fussell/courses/cs352.fall98/Homework/cc1.din.Z and Valgrind doesn't think there are any leaks:

==26852== Memcheck, a memory error detector
==26852== Copyright (C) 2002-2013, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==26852== Using Valgrind-3.10.0 and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info
==26852== Command: ./main
==26852==
==26852==
==26852== HEAP SUMMARY:
==26852==     in use at exit: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==26852==   total heap usage: 24,846 allocs, 24,846 frees, 828,804 bytes allocated
==26852==
==26852== All heap blocks were freed -- no leaks are possible
==26852==
==26852== For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -v
==26852== ERROR SUMMARY: 0 errors from 0 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)

[tmsimont]

When you pass to a.cacheRead(address(addr)) or a.cacheWrite(address(addr)) you're just passing a copy of a new instance, not a pointer (which would be a.cacheRead(new address(addr)))

The read/write functions use the copy from the stack frame and it is cleaned up when that frame is removed.

When you pass these around from the read/write functions, you're not passing pointers or addresses, so it looks like you're copying out to other functions, too.

[tmsimont]

Also I don't think Address() is even necessary if we move index/offset/tag parse responsibility to the cache ( #1 )