Will not unboxing cause memory leaks?

[gayatri pande]

Is memory leaks possible if a value type is boxed and is not unboxed?

 int i =3;
object o = i;//Implict boxing
//This object is never unboxed
 

[r035198x]

No. Boxing is just computationally expensive that's all.

[mldisibio]

Not memory leaks, but more memory is used when boxing value types:

// Value types are created on the stack.
int i = 3; 
 
// A reference type (object) is created on the heap. 
// "o" points to it.
// The value copied to the heap is a copy of i, 
// which is still on the stack
object o = i; 

As opposed to reference types, where "boxing" is really just inheritance casting:

// Reference type created on the heap
// "c" points to it
MyClass c = new MyClass(); 
// "o" is now a pointer to the same address of "c" on the heap
object o = c; 

[vekipeki]

When you say "This object is never unboxed", note that "boxing" a value type does not do anything to the original type, just like "unboxing" does not change the original reference type.

The name "boxing" is a bit confusing because it sounds like you are encapsulating your original value in some way, but you are actually creating a new object which has the initial value same as your original value.

int i = 1;
object o = i;
 
// changing i will not change o
i = 2;
 
 // this will display "1", not "2"
Console.WriteLine(o);

Since your new object is a reference type, GC will collect it when it gets out scope, just as any other object, so there will not be any memory leaks.