Hello John.
I already went over the manual, and did not find anything that helped including
the --freelist-* flags.
I found answers for all of your questions below, but they are not relevant any
more.
Following your advice to construct the smallest stand-alone test case,
I saw that the problem
The attached testcase (which is simply pthread_cond_init +
pthread_cond_destroy), leads to an error in helgrind:
pthread_cond_destroy: destruction of unknown cond var
I've seen this forever with helgrind, but it's time to clean this up :)
However my debugging got stuck. I found out that 1) the
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
I already went over the manual, and did not find anything that helped
including the --freelist-* flags.
Please read more carefully. I found relevant material which I pinpoint below
in the hope that specific references may help increase understanding for future
uses.
I downloaded the manual
On Thu, 2013-03-14 at 18:48 +0100, David Faure wrote:
The attached testcase (which is simply pthread_cond_init +
pthread_cond_destroy), leads to an error in helgrind:
pthread_cond_destroy: destruction of unknown cond var
Looks like this is:
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=307082
which
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 be
On Thu, 2013-03-14 at 13:47 -0700, John Reiser wrote:
In the NEWS section, Release 3.8.0 (10 August 2012), TOOL CHANGES,
* Non-libc malloc implementations are now supported. This is useful
for tools that replace malloc (Memcheck, Massif, DRD, Helgrind).
Using the new option
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Philippe Waroquiers
philippe.waroqui...@skynet.be 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
On Thu, 2013-03-14 at 14:18 -0700, Patrick J. LoPresti wrote:
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Philippe Waroquiers
philippe.waroqui...@skynet.be 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
