On Thu, 2013-03-14 at 14:18 -0700, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Philippe Waroquiers
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2013-03-14 at 19:21 +, Phil Longstaff wrote:
> >> How hard would it be for memcheck to not report a block as being
> >> potentially lost if the internal poi
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Philippe Waroquiers
wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-03-14 at 19:21 +, Phil Longstaff wrote:
>> How hard would it be for memcheck to not report a block as being
>> potentially lost if the internal pointer could be a pointer to a base
>> class? Is there sufficient info in
On Thu, 2013-03-14 at 19:21 +, Phil Longstaff wrote:
> Memcheck will report that memory is potentially lost if there is no
> pointer to the beginning of a block, but there is an internal pointer.
> One valid use of an internal pointer is a pointer to a base class in C
> ++. How hard would it
Probably more a question for developers than users, but let me start by asking
it here...
Memcheck will report that memory is potentially lost if there is no pointer to
the beginning of a block, but there is an internal pointer. One valid use of
an internal pointer is a pointer to a base class
