Hi all,
I now know it's somewhat an academic exercise of little practical
importance, thanks for the clarification!!
Cheers,
Antonio
2011/9/2 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Craig Ringer ring...@ringerc.id.au writes:
Even better, add a valgrind suppressions file for the warnings and
ignore
Hi all,
I'm running one of my programs with valgrind to check for memory leaks
and I'm seeing something like this:
==13207== 4 bytes in 1 blocks are still reachable in loss record 1 of 256
==13207==at 0x4026864: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:236)
==13207==by 0x43343BD: ??? (in
Antonio Vieiro anto...@antonioshome.net writes:
I'm running one of my programs with valgrind to check for memory leaks
and I'm seeing something like this:
==13207== 4 bytes in 1 blocks are still reachable in loss record 1 of 256
These are not bugs; they are just permanent allocations that are
On 01/09/11 22:08, Antonio Vieiro wrote:
Hi all,
I'm running one of my programs with valgrind to check for memory leaks
and I'm seeing something like this:
You only get the one report, though, right? No matter how many times
PQconnectdb is run in a loop?
It's internal stuff within OpenSSL.
Craig Ringer ring...@ringerc.id.au writes:
Even better, add a valgrind suppressions file for the warnings and
ignore them. They are leaks only in the sense that a static variable
is a leak, ie not at all.
Yeah, the bottom line here is that valgrind will warn about many things
that are not
