BUG? MouseInputSource <leaks> when quitting GUI app with an open PopupMenu

#1

I don’t know if this is a bug, or something I’m doing wrong (likely the latter). But I am putting up PopupMenu from a TextButton using a lambda, like this:

    addAndMakeVisible(menuButton);
    menuButton.onClick = [this] {
        PopupMenu menu;
        menu.addItem(1, "item 1");
        menu.addItem(2, "item 2");
        int sel = menu.show();
        if (sel)
        {
        //do stuff

        }

If I quite the app with the popup open, quite often I get this:

*** Leaked objects detected: 3 instance(s) of class MouseInputSource
JUCE Assertion failure in juce_LeakedObjectDetector.h:90

This is on Mac OSX Mojave in a gui app. I would assume JUCE is supposed to handle this, but maybe not. Any ideas? Thanks.

#2

I guess, it’s because the menu.show() created a modal loop, that didn’t finish when the app closes down.

Maybe calling the static PopupMenu::dismissAllActiveMenus() in the quit command helps.
I have a hunch that this is already been called though, but has no chance to finish, since it is only next in the message queue.

But worth a try…

#3

Thanks for the suggestion. I tried it but it doesn’t fix the problem. The popup menu stays open even after that is called, then it hits the assert.

This really seems like a JUCE bug? Any comment from the JUCE developers?

Or do I actually have to launch every popup asynchronously with a callback in order to avoid this? That seems very wrong…

#4

on the contrary, that’s exactly the suggested approach to follow.
Bear in mind that there are platforms where modal loops aren’t even possible.

But thanks to the advancements in latest C++ standards, providing a callback is no more that difficult thanks to lambdas

1 Like
#5

OK, I just played around some and it’s NOT that difficult to do it asynchronously with the lambda.

But someone else just told me (privately):

The memory-leak is a non-problem, since it only occurs on shutdown, hence won’t be cumulative. You can just ignore it.

Is that true, basically?