https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=455826
--- Comment #3 from shapath <meeee...@gmail.com> --- Thank you guys for the response !!! The leak is reported in third-party code. Based on your responses and input I analyzed the code and wrote a similar sample program where i was able to hit this. The interesting thing I found is it is related to packing. If I do not use packing I do not see this issue. Here is the sample code: ====================== #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <string.h> #define YPACK __attribute__((packed)) //#define YPACK typedef struct sample_t { unsigned short header; struct sample_t *prev; struct sample_t *next; } YPACK MY_Node; typedef struct abc { MY_Node node; char *name; } YPACK xyz; //Global xyz *node; void* my_malloc(char **t) { { *t = strdup("hello"); } } void main() { char *t; node = malloc(sizeof(xyz)); my_malloc(&(node->name)); while(1) sleep(); //free(t); return; } Valgrind report:- ============== (gdb) monitor leak_check full reachable any ==30830== 6 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 1 of 2 ==30830== at 0x4C29F73: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:309) ==30830== by 0x4EC3B89: strdup (in /usr/lib64/libc-2.17.so) ==30830== by 0x4005D2: my_malloc (valgrind.c:29) ==30830== by 0x400606: main (valgrind.c:37) ==30830== ==30830== 26 bytes in 1 blocks are still reachable in loss record 2 of 2 ==30830== at 0x4C29F73: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:309) ==30830== by 0x4005EC: main (valgrind.c:36) ==30830== ==30830== LEAK SUMMARY: ==30830== definitely lost: 6 bytes in 1 blocks ==30830== indirectly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks ==30830== possibly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks ==30830== still reachable: 26 bytes in 1 blocks ==30830== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks ==30830== Thanks Shapath -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.