On 04/30/2011 09:14 PM, venom00 wrote:
>> I've looked briefly at this one before, and I find it confusing. It
>> looks as if it is saying that we are leaking the docstring
>> word itself,
>> i.e., that it's not being cleaned up, but why would that be?
> Mmmh, I find it pretty simple: we have some
> I've looked briefly at this one before, and I find it confusing. It
> looks as if it is saying that we are leaking the docstring
> word itself,
> i.e., that it's not being cleaned up, but why would that be?
Mmmh, I find it pretty simple: we have some elements added to a set but never
removed.
On 04/30/2011 09:33 AM, venom00 wrote:
>> I'd like to hear your thoughts about these logs before trying
>> to get into them and understand what's wrong.
> The memory losses are sorted by size, so maybe we can try to fix at least the
> biggest memory leaks.
>
> For instance:
> ==22649== 47,920 byt
> I'd like to hear your thoughts about these logs before trying
> to get into them and understand what's wrong.
The memory losses are sorted by size, so maybe we can try to fix at least the
biggest memory leaks.
For instance:
==22649== 47,920 bytes in 960 blocks are indirectly lost in loss reco
