On Feb 3, 2010, at 2:07 PM, Kirk, Benjamin (JSC-EG311) wrote: > My thought was that the global ++/-- reference count was a cheap, good thing > to check for leaks at the grossest level. Not sure how many threads you are > on, or the actual overhead of the atomic operation...
We're running upwards of 32 threads... but, like you, I don't know the overhead of atomic operations. > Then again, you're the guy who has advocated leaking memory on this list > before, perhaps the reference counter is right? ;-) Oh - it's definitely correct! In a way at least... but it's a known issue. Even if I didn't have a known leak (in my case it's not _really_ a "leak" anyway)... I don't want my users to see "Memory Leak Detected!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DEREK IS AN IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" printed at the end of every one of their runs if I happen to make a mistake ;-) Derek ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Planet: dedicated and managed hosting, cloud storage, colocation Stay online with enterprise data centers and the best network in the business Choose flexible plans and management services without long-term contracts Personal 24x7 support from experience hosting pros just a phone call away. http://p.sf.net/sfu/theplanet-com _______________________________________________ Libmesh-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libmesh-devel
