On Mar 31, 2011, at 7:55 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:
> It's entirely expected that it may fail under valgrind when it doesn't
> normally because the memory layout is different plus every byte of memory
> you allocate has a little over a byte (nine bits) of overhead in the form
> of the shadow memory valgrind is using to track it, and so on.
>
> You will run out of memory more quickly under valgrind that you do normally
> is the basic message.
Sure, understandable. But to go from a program that is able to
allocate nearly 16G without valgrind to one that fails at 2.8G with
it?
The test program has this line:
m26=malloc((size_t)12615754384);
12.6G in a single block and that works fine without valgrind. With
valgrind, memory allocation starts to fail way earlier, and the 12G
attempt also fails.
And in fact, if I comment out that huge 12.6G block and compile on a
32bit machine, and run (without valgrind), I get allocation failures
starting at around 2.4G. This I expect on a 32-bit machine, from past
experience. All this, together with valgrind giving me a message that
seems to be telling me "my, grandmother, but that's a big block you
are trying to allocate", is what makes me suspicious that the valgrind
is doing something that is limiting me to the equivalent of a 32-bit
realm.
Anyway, Tom, I do really appreciate your help on this. My guess is
you probably feel like you are beating a dead horse at this point.
Thanks again,
Bob H
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Create and publish websites with WebMatrix
Use the most popular FREE web apps or write code yourself;
WebMatrix provides all the features you need to develop and
publish your website. http://p.sf.net/sfu/ms-webmatrix-sf
_______________________________________________
Valgrind-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/valgrind-users
