On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Sharad Birmiwal <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 12-11-05 10:34 AM, Pushparaj Shetty wrote: > >> @Phani bhushan >> >> I attached program. >> Given below is a trace of the program >> >> > As I had suspected. Compile your code and run valgrind on it (on your 32 > bit machine). You may see what seems to be an indication of how lucky you > are that the code ran on a 32 bit machine (let alone a different > architecture). > @SB Hi I did valgrind the summary is copied below. Pls let me know if this is a serious problem. I did free memory wherever possible. HEAP SUMMARY: ==4018== in use at exit: 21,592 bytes in 1,514 blocks ==4018== total heap usage: 8,744 allocs, 7,230 frees, 109,792 bytes allocated ==4018== ==4018== LEAK SUMMARY: ==4018== definitely lost: 4,824 bytes in 322 blocks ==4018== indirectly lost: 16,768 bytes in 1,192 blocks ==4018== possibly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks ==4018== still reachable: 0 bytes in 0 blocks ==4018== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks ==4018== Rerun with --leak-check=full to see details of leaked memory ==4018== ==4018== For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -v ==4018== ERROR SUMMARY: 90 errors from 4 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0) regards Pushparaj -- Mailing list guidelines and other related articles: http://lug-iitd.org/Footer
