On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 08:27:30AM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote: > > > Dag Lindbo wrote: > > Hello! > > > > I attach a script that runs Valgrind (memcheck) on all C++ demos (based > > on the one that just runs all demos). My suggestion is that this be > > included in the testing procedure. > > > > At present (on my machine) 17 of 31 demos result in a memory leak (!) > > None of the demos produce a memory error. > > > > Note that most, but not all, leaks are due to XML parsing. Are these > > really leaks? It is impossible for vg to understand memory pools and > > other exotic memory management that are not explicitly freed. Glib does > > this in the GTS interface. Maybe libxml2 does something similar. In that > > case, I can easily provide a suppression for xml2. > > > > I took a look and fixed at least one leak, but a few others don't look > like leaks to me. Part of the problem is that I think we're using > pointers is some classes where std::vector would be more appropriate, > particularly in the mesh and dof map classes, which is a source of > potential leaks and makes ownership unclear. > > Is there a reason that we use pointers for various arrays in the mesh > classes rather than std::vector?
Yes, the mesh implementation relies heavily on storing data in contiguous arrays and working with offsets into those arrays. I doubt that there are any serious memory leaks in the mesh classes. All data is stored in MeshTopology and MeshGeometry and their destructors should take care of cleaning up. -- Anders
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ DOLFIN-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
