On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Kaveh R. Ghazi writes:
> > A valgrind suppression only silences the error for valgrind. What if
> > someone uses another memory checking tool? Better to fix it for real IMHO.
>
> Because it's not a bug? You're changing the code to silence a false
> negative, which this is what we here in England call "putting the cart
> before the horse." If we clean up all the memory regions on closedown
> we'll be wasting CPU time. And for what?
> Andrew.
For what is to save developer time, which is way more valuable than cpu
time. As I mentioned to Tom, someone using another memory checking tool
will run into the same problem and he'll waste time reinventing the wheel.
And someone on this list will have to remind him about this "known"
problem.
Even so if cpu time is a concern, I don't believe that it's a factor here.
I challenge you to show that this free'ing of memory can be measured and
shows up on a profile. Even on an *empty* file at -O0, I seriously double
the mpfr_free_cache eats any cpu that you can measure, let alone measuring
it on a serious module of any releavent size at higher optimization.
--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
