On Tuesday 30 December 2008 11:39:19 Joachim B Haga wrote: > Johan Hake <[email protected]> writes: > > I have done that several times with no luck. I have tried valgrind, with > > no directly usefull output (found some MPI memory leaks though) and also > > tried > > I was curious about this, so I ran it myself. And it does apparently detect > this error: > > ==26837== Invalid write of size 8 > ==26837== at 0x734B727: dolfin::Function::interpolate(double*, > [...] > ==26837== Address 0x4a8b910 is 0 bytes after a block of size 24 alloc'd > ==26837== at 0x402209E: operator new[](unsigned) > (vg_replace_malloc.c:268) ==26837== by 0x73449B8: > dolfin::FunctionSpace::Scratch::init(dolfin::FiniteElement (no line numbers > inside dolfin, maybe add -g to the compile flags?)
Aha! There it was! > But it may be hidden in the noise unless you suppress all the normal python > alarms, found in > http://svn.python.org/projects/python/trunk/Misc/valgrind-python.supp Ok! > If your MPI library also triggers errors, you might want to look for a > suppressions file for that also. Alternatively, it doesn't take long to > make your own. Run valgrind on a known-good test, with > --gen-suppressions=all and put the generated suppressions into your .supp > file. (You may want to copy just the first few lines of each, to make them > more general, that way you will usually only have to copy a few.) Nice! I suggest that we use the valgrind-python.supp together with a MPI suppression file and run the valgrind test on the python demos too. Thanks for helping out with this. I am just a baby learing to crawl wrt valgrind. > Another thing, the buildbots offer an enticing entry "memchecklog", but it > seems to be always empty. What's up with that? > > > And still happy, um, "romjul" to you all! Thanks and to all of you other hacker too! Johan _______________________________________________ DOLFIN-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.fenics.org/mailman/listinfo/dolfin-dev
