On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 11:45 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote: > On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 16:02 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote: > > Look at the free_part function being called at > > g_hash_table_foreach (cache->parts, free_part, cache); > > > > It frees the key. > > Aha. Okay thanks for the clarification. > > I wonder, wouldn't it be better to use the standard infrastructure of > GHashTable to clearup keys? The full version of the GHashTable's > constructor has a callback function pointer parameter that'll be used > for freeing up keys like this. I think it needs to be done that way. But just a clean up work IMO.
> I of course also wonder howcome my memory analysis tool pointed me to > this memory leak. Although it might be explained by one CamelMessage > reference still being open when the exit(0) took place. > I use totalview to analyze memory. I dont see that from it. May be at some specific scenarios. -Srini. _______________________________________________ Evolution-hackers mailing list Evolutionfirstname.lastname@example.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers