I'm going to give the unpopular but practical answer that it's always wrong to free memory unless doing so will reduce the memory usage of your program. For instance a program that makes a single allocation or series of allocations to load the dataset it will use for its entire lifetime has no need to free anything. In the more common case of a large program with very dynamic memory requirements (think of a web browser), you should obviously free memory you're no longer using as soon as you can (for instance closing a tab/document/etc.), but there's no reason to free anything when the user selects clicks "exit", and doing so is actually harmful to the user experience.

为什么?释放内存需要接触内存。即使您的系统的malloc实现碰巧没有在分配的内存块附近存储元数据，您也可能会遍历递归结构，只是为了找到所有需要释放的指针。

Now, suppose your program has worked with a large volume of data, but hasn't touched most of it for a while (again, web browser is a great example). If the user is running a lot of apps, a good portion of that data has likely been swapped to disk. If you just exit(0) or return from main, it exits instantly. Great user experience. If you go to the trouble of trying to free everything, you may spend 5 seconds or more swapping all the data back in, only to throw it away immediately after that. Waste of user's time. Waste of laptop's battery life. Waste of wear on the hard disk.

这不仅仅是理论上的。每当我发现自己加载了太多的应用程序，磁盘开始抖动时，我甚至不会考虑点击“退出”。我以最快的速度到达一个终端，输入killall -9…因为我知道"退出"只会让情况更糟。

随着时间的推移，我看到的“良性”泄漏的数量一只手就能数得过来。

所以我的答案是肯定的。

An example. If you have a singleton resource that needs a buffer to store a circular queue or deque but doesn't know how big the buffer will need to be and can't afford the overhead of locking or every reader, then allocating an exponentially doubling buffer but not freeing the old ones will leak a bounded amount of memory per queue/deque. The benefit for these is they speed up every access dramatically and can change the asymptotics of multiprocessor solutions by never risking contention for a lock.

我已经看到这种方法在具有非常明确的固定计数的事情上有很大的好处，例如每cpu工作窃取deques，并且在Hans Boehm的C/ c++保守垃圾收集器中用于保存单例/proc/self/maps状态的缓冲区中有较小的程度，用于检测根集等。

虽然从技术上讲这是一个漏洞，但这两种情况在大小上都是有限制的，并且在可增长的循环工作窃取deque情况下，可以获得巨大的性能优势，以换取队列内存使用量增加2的有界因子。

我同意vfilby -这要看情况。在Windows中，我们将内存泄漏视为相对严重的错误。但是，这很大程度上取决于分量。

例如，对于很少运行且运行时间有限的组件，内存泄漏不是很严重。这些组件运行，完成工作，然后退出。当它们退出时，所有内存都被隐式释放。

但是，服务或其他长期运行组件(如shell)中的内存泄漏非常严重。原因是这些bug会随着时间的推移“窃取”内存。恢复的唯一方法是重新启动组件。大多数人不知道如何重新启动服务或shell——所以如果他们的系统性能受到影响，他们就重新启动。

所以，如果你有一个泄漏-评估它的影响两种方式

你的软件和你的用户体验。 对于系统(和用户)来说，节省系统资源是非常重要的。 修复对维护和可靠性的影响。 在其他地方造成倒退的可能性。

前甲板

如果它是故意的，它真的不是一个泄漏，它不是一个问题，除非它是一个相当大的内存，或者可以增长到一个相当大的内存。在程序的生命周期内不清理全局分配是很常见的。如果泄漏是在服务器或长时间运行的应用程序中，随着时间的推移而增长，那么这就是一个问题。

在应用程序运行后清理操作系统在概念上没有问题。

这实际上取决于应用程序以及它将如何运行。在需要运行数周的应用程序中不断发生的泄漏必须得到处理，但是一个不需要太多内存就能计算结果的小工具应该不是问题。

许多脚本语言不垃圾收集循环引用是有原因的……对于它们的使用模式，这不是一个实际的问题，因此浪费的资源和浪费的内存一样多。

Some great answers here. To add another perspective to this question, I'll address a case where memory leak is not only acceptable but desirable: in Windows drivers environment the developer provides a set of callbacks that are being run by the OS whenever required. One of the callbacks is a 'Shutdown' callback, which runs prior to system being shut off/restarted. Unlike standard situations, not only memory release is not necessary (system will be off in a moment), it's even discouraged - to make the shutdown as fast as possible and prevent the overhead of memory management.