Sven Neumann wrote: > I agree that it would help a lot if we could in one way or another get > rid of false positives. But my experience shows that you get pretty much > the same valgrind warnings no matter how large your GTK+ application is. > Your 100 line demo program will produce the same set of warnings as your > 30000 lines application (provided that your code doesn't have leaks).
For a program that isn't leaking that would probably be correct. However, for helloworld I get: ==22566== LEAK SUMMARY: ==22566== definitely lost: 1,449 bytes in 8 blocks ==22566== indirectly lost: 3,716 bytes in 189 blocks ==22566== possibly lost: 4,428 bytes in 107 blocks ==22566== still reachable: 380,505 bytes in 7,898 blocks ==22566== suppressed: 35,873 bytes in 182 blocks and for my program (which I'm pretty sure does leak): ==12528== LEAK SUMMARY: ==12528== definitely lost: 12,997 bytes in 366 blocks ==12528== indirectly lost: 12,539 bytes in 470 blocks ==12528== possibly lost: 157,240 bytes in 5,219 blocks ==12528== still reachable: 920,186 bytes in 18,753 blocks ==12528== suppressed: 40,629 bytes in 284 blocks Looking at the valgrind log: http://www.mega-nerd.com/erikd/Blog/files/sweep-valgrind.txt.gz for me at least, its impossible to tell which ones I should be looking at or how to fix them. > But still it would make everyone's life easier if one wouldn't have to > differentiate between false and real positives manually. Perhaps > valgrind suppression files maintained and shipped with the libraries > would indeed be a good idea. Is there an up to date suppressions file I should try? Erik -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Erik de Castro Lopo http://www.mega-nerd.com/ _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
