On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 19:19:22 -0600, Hans Petter Jansson wrote:
Also, the last time I checked, valgrind would only let you suppress
messages about invalid accesses, not leaked memory.
No, it definitely allows suppressions for leaked memory, via a
Memcheck:Leak suppression entry. I've included an
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 06:46 -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 19:19:22 -0600, Hans Petter Jansson wrote:
Also, the last time I checked, valgrind would only let you suppress
messages about invalid accesses, not leaked memory.
No, it definitely allows suppressions for leaked
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 06:46:19AM -0700, Carl Worth wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 19:19:22 -0600, Hans Petter Jansson wrote:
Also, the last time I checked, valgrind would only let you suppress
messages about invalid accesses, not leaked memory.
No, it definitely allows suppressions for
Hi to all!
I'm developping a app with GLib. Recently I've tryied to remove all the
memory leaks of the app, using valgrind with great success.
However, there is still one small leak that I want to discuss with you.
The funcion g_get_user_config_dir returns a const gchar *. In the
docs it says
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 08:39:06PM +0100, Rúben Fonseca wrote:
Hi to all!
I'm developping a app with GLib. Recently I've tryied to remove all the
memory leaks of the app, using valgrind with great success.
However, there is still one small leak that I want to discuss with you.
The
On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 20:40 +0100, Rúben Fonseca wrote:
So my question is, is g_get_user_config_dir really leaking? Or it is
just a Valgrind problem? Can I make it not to leak?
Looking up entries in the password database (thats the getpwnam_r call)
can potentially take a long time (say the
On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 20:57 +0100, Ross Burton wrote:
On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 20:40 +0100, Rúben Fonseca wrote:
So my question is, is g_get_user_config_dir really leaking? Or it is
just a Valgrind problem? Can I make it not to leak?
Looking up entries in the password database (thats the
Hans Petter Jansson wrote:
If it's cached, shouldn't it still be reachable?
valgrind has a (mostly useless) mode that shows reachable-but-not-freed
blocks.
Havoc
___
gtk-devel-list mailing list
gtk-devel-list@gnome.org
On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 21:10 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
Hans Petter Jansson wrote:
If it's cached, shouldn't it still be reachable?
valgrind has a (mostly useless) mode that shows reachable-but-not-freed
blocks.
Yes, but then it says still reachable. This one says definitely
lost.
