Can you get stack traces for these?
I ran the whole protobuf test suite with the google-perftools leak checker
and didn't detect any leaks.

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Oleg Smolsky <o...@smolsky.net> wrote:

>  Hi Kenton, thank you for letting me know. I've just got and built this
> version of protoc/libprotobuf and run my unit test - there are still a few
> leaks according to VS2008. So, there is a difference between v2.1.0 and the
> destructor-based patch that I had cleaned up for v2.0.3.
>
> The output is below. Do you happen to recognize the 24 byte structure that
> starts with a pointer and then contains 0xffffffff? :)
>
> Kind regards,
> Oleg.
>
> Detected memory leaks!
> Dumping objects ->
> {1438} normal block at 0x00D72620, 24 bytes long.
>  Data: <h (             > 68 A6 28 00 FF FF FF FF 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> {1437} normal block at 0x00D725C8, 24 bytes long.
>  Data: <0 (             > 30 A6 28 00 FF FF FF FF 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> {946} normal block at 0x00246AB0, 24 bytes long.
>  Data: <  (             > A0 A1 28 00 FF FF FF FF 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> {945} normal block at 0x00249CD0, 24 bytes long.
>  Data: <h (             > 68 A1 28 00 FF FF FF FF 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> {934} normal block at 0x00249840, 24 bytes long.
>  Data: <0 (             > 30 A1 28 00 FF FF FF FF 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> {812} normal block at 0x002469B0, 24 bytes long.
>  Data: <x (             > 78 9D 28 00 FF FF FF FF 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> {685} normal block at 0x00D71FB0, 24 bytes long.
>  Data: <  (             > D0 9C 28 00 FF FF FF FF 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> {667} normal block at 0x00D71608, 24 bytes long.
>  Data: <` (             > 60 9C 28 00 FF FF FF FF 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> {666} normal block at 0x00D715B0, 24 bytes long.
>  Data: <( (             > 28 9C 28 00 FF FF FF FF 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> {663} normal block at 0x00D713D8, 24 bytes long.
>  Data: <Pu(             > 50 75 28 00 FF FF FF FF 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> {148} normal block at 0x00245820, 24 bytes long.
>  Data: <pt(             > 70 74 28 00 FF FF FF FF 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> {147} normal block at 0x002457C8, 24 bytes long.
>  Data: <8t(             > 38 74 28 00 FF FF FF FF 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> {136} normal block at 0x00245290, 24 bytes long.
>  Data: < t(             > 00 74 28 00 FF FF FF FF 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> {135} normal block at 0x00245238, 24 bytes long.
>  Data: < s(             > C8 73 28 00 FF FF FF FF 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
> Object dump complete.
>
>
> On 2009/5/14 13:08, Kenton Varda wrote:
>
> FYI:  This is fixed in the 2.1.0 release (you can call
> google::protobuf::ShutdownProtobufLibrary() to clean up all "leaks").
>
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Kenton Varda <ken...@google.com> wrote:
>
>>  On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Oleg Smolsky <o...@smolsky.net> wrote:
>>
>>>  So, the next question is - would it ever make its way into your SVN? If
>>> so, do you see a need for a switch of some kind?
>>>
>>
>>  Yeah, reviewing and committing this is on my todo list for the next
>> release.
>>
>
>
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
protobuf+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to