in reply to Memory leak!

I didn't look to closely. The indenting in your code looks a bit random (hard to follow the flow). Try perltidy to fix that. But there are a few things that you should take a look at:

First, you call a function like this: 

for (;;) {
 &Prog;
}

[download]
I think you really meant 
while(1) {
    Prog();
}

[download]

The function cleanUp calls opendir but not closedir. Looks like you do the same in Prog. One of the golden rules is: Always close handles as soon as you don't need them anymore.

Don't use '#ff0000':
use Acme::AutoColor; my $redcolor = RED();
All colors subject to change without notice.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Memory leak!
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Dec 12, 2011 at 19:53 UTC

    If you deparse for(;;){ you get:

    perl -MO=Deparse -e"for(;;){ print 'hello' }"
while (1) {
    print 'hello';
}

    [download]

    Whilst I agree while(1) { is clearer, for(;;){ isn't actually an error.

    With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

    The start of some sanity?
[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

      Ah, thanks. Didn't realize Perl already does that. Good catch!

      BREW /very/strong/coffee HTTP/1.1
Host: goodmorning.example.com

418 I'm a teapot
[reply]

      for(;;){ isn't actually an error.

      This is intentional. In both C and Perl, any combination of the three expressions can be omitted.

      • If the initialisation expression is missing, no initialisation is performed before entering the loop.
      • If the exit condition is missing, the loop doesn't exit.
      • If the counting expression is missing, no code is executed at the end of every pass.
[reply]
[d/l]
        This is intentional. In both C and Perl, any combination of the three expressions can be omitted.

        I know.

        It means that instead of this:

        C:\test>perl -E"while(<>){ print }"
hello
hello
goodbye
goodbye
^Z

        [download]

        We could write:

        C:\test>perl -E"for(;<>;){ print }"
fred
fred
bill
bill
john
john
^Z

        [download]

        But few, if any, would.

        With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
        Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
        "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
        In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

        The start of some sanity?
[reply]
[d/l]
[select]
Re^2: Memory leak!
by joeymac (Acolyte) on Dec 12, 2011 at 19:44 UTC

    Thanks for the advice on the closedir. I will add these in and see if it has an effect on the problem. Just for reference, is there much difference between infinitely looping using a

    while(1) {}

    loop rather than a

    for (;;){}

    loop?

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

      The first one makes it a bit clearer that you are intentionally looping an infinite number.

      I'm not sure about this, but the while loop may also be a tiny bit more efficient in this case.

      BREW /very/strong/coffee HTTP/1.1
Host: goodmorning.example.com

418 I'm a teapot
[reply]

        cavac:

        You shouldn't speculate--just measure it with Devel::Benchmark!

        Roboticus ducks and runs while wondering if his machine can do more infinite loops per second than yours... ;^D

        ...roboticus

        When your only tool is a hammer, all problems look like your thumb.

[reply]

        How could doing more work (evaluating a constant) be more efficient?

        It's not less efficient either, though. while (CONSTANT) { ... } gets compiled as for (;;) { ... } or (); depending on whether the constant is true or false.

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]
      No, while (1) {} gets optimised to for (;;) {} (which I use and pronounced "for ever").
[reply]
[d/l]
[select]
        No, while (1) {} gets optimised to for (;;) {} (which I use and pronounced "for ever").

        Er, no. for (;;) {} gets deobfuscated to:

        perl -MO=Deparse -e"for(;;){}"
while (1) {
    ();
}
-e syntax OK

        [download]
        With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
        Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
        "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
        In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

        The start of some sanity?
[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom