>Michael wrote
>but the advantage is that searching for "hack_acquire" in valgrind's output
very quickly finds the actual leak.
what is your analysis of why there is a leak in uno::Reference, and where
did you find it. Was your correction a small bit of?
__
On Tuesday 21 of October 2014, Noel Grandin wrote:
> On 2014-10-20 06:27 PM, Michael Stahl wrote:
> > there are 2 ways i've tried to track down the 2 leaking acquire()s:
> >
> > 1. instrument the acquire()/release() method and run the test in gdb,
> > the script just takes 2 minutes to run (90 seco
>> ... but enough with the jocularities: there was this ChartModel that
>> was leaked due to a uno::Reference cycle, which means that the usual
>> tools like valgrind and address sanitizer aren't very useful as such.
>
> I would expect
>
> valgrind --tool=memcheck --leak-check=full --show-leak-
On 21.10.2014 18:20, David Tardon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 06:27:42PM +0200, Michael Stahl wrote:
>>
>> as everyone knows, C++ programs do not leak memory because they use RAII
>> and smart pointers to automatically release all allocated memory at just
>> the right time.
>>
>> ...
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 06:27:42PM +0200, Michael Stahl wrote:
>
> as everyone knows, C++ programs do not leak memory because they use RAII
> and smart pointers to automatically release all allocated memory at just
> the right time.
>
> ... but enough with the jocularities: there was this Ch
On 10/21/2014 03:59 PM, Michael Stahl wrote:
possibly backtrace_symbols - but we do want to have de-mangled C++
function names, since the approach generally requires manual analysis
and you want to be able to quickly discard obviously wrongly detected leaks.
...just pipe the output through c++f
On 21.10.2014 12:07, Noel Grandin wrote:
>
>
> On 2014-10-20 06:27 PM, Michael Stahl wrote:
>> there are 2 ways i've tried to track down the 2 leaking acquire()s:
>>
>> 1. instrument the acquire()/release() method and run the test in gdb,
>> the script just takes 2 minutes to run (90 seconds of w
On 2014-10-20 06:27 PM, Michael Stahl wrote:
there are 2 ways i've tried to track down the 2 leaking acquire()s:
1. instrument the acquire()/release() method and run the test in gdb,
the script just takes 2 minutes to run (90 seconds of which are spent in
a single regex) but unfortunately prin
