Excerpts from Wan Mohd Fairuz Wan Ismail's message of Sex Mai 20 10:23:51 -0300 2011: > From user manual: > > First, a leak is only counted as a true "error" if --leak-check=full is > specified. In other words, an unprinted leak is not considered a true > "error". If this were not the case, it would be possible to get a high error > count but not have any errors printed, which would be confusing. > After that, definitely lost and possibly lost blocks are counted as true > "errors". Indirectly lost and still reachable blocks are not counted as true > "errors", even if --show-reachable=yes is specified and they are printed; > this is because such blocks don't need direct fixing by the programmer.
I understand that, but I think it would still be useful to have an option for telling valgrind that it should exit with error if there are still reachable, because this makes it easier to automate valgrind calls for this check. Thanks for the reply. > On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva < > [email protected]> wrote: (...) > > Please Cc me, since I'm not subscribed to the list. Actually, I had to join the list, so no need to Cc me. Sorry for not removing this. Greetings. (...) -- marcot http://marcot.eti.br/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ What Every C/C++ and Fortran developer Should Know! Read this article and learn how Intel has extended the reach of its next-generation tools to help Windows* and Linux* C/C++ and Fortran developers boost performance applications - including clusters. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay
_______________________________________________ Valgrind-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/valgrind-users
