On Friday 04 June 2010, R. P. Janaka wrote: > As mentioned in the manual, I was able to avoid this by using the* ** > --separate-recs=10* . > But I am still wondering why we get cycle for new or malloc (because they > should never call recursively )
Probably not a direct cycle, but a false one. It could be (just guessing): - malloc needs the runtime linker on first call - the runtime linker sometimes needs malloc Anyway, by traversing direct callees residing in the cycle function, you should be able to find a cyclic call chain yourself. Josef ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ThinkGeek and WIRED's GeekDad team up for the Ultimate GeekDad Father's Day Giveaway. ONE MASSIVE PRIZE to the lucky parental unit. See the prize list and enter to win: http://p.sf.net/sfu/thinkgeek-promo _______________________________________________ Valgrind-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/valgrind-users
