On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 23:33 +0000, Richard Seguin wrote: > * Flagging as importance low at the moment as the theory at the moment > is that this is configuration specific. I am running an up to date > intrepid system and are not having the same trouble.
So I'm imagining this: PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 14543 brian 20 0 626m 48m 24m S 0 1.7 2:56.62 pidgin And I'm imagining this: ==25684== LEAK SUMMARY: ==25684== definitely lost: 489,237 bytes in 4,540 blocks. ==25684== indirectly lost: 1,095,670 bytes in 29,414 blocks. ==25684== possibly lost: 121,379 bytes in 203 blocks. It doesn't really matter that your installation is not having memory leaks (i.e. that you cannot reproduce) because I have given you the valgrind log that a) proves there are memory leaks and b) details where they are. What was the point of asking for a valgrind log if you are not prepared to use the results from it to debug the problem? b. -- [intrepid] Pidgin at times produces segfault. Valgrind included shows memory leaks. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/321258 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
