Dominique Pelle wrote: > Regarding the leak in undo.c, I found a way to reproduce > it all the times with Vim-7.3a (2216:dd5c1983e355). > It also give an error E438 (which is an internal error): > > Using attached file leak.vim, run: > > $ rm -f foo* ; valgrind --leak-check=yes 2> vg.log \ > vim -u NONE --noplugin -c 'set undofile' \ > -c 'so! leak.vim' \ > -c 'so! leak.vim' foo > > Then quit with :q! > > Log file vg.log shows 2 leaks both in u_read_undo(): > > ==2962== 2 bytes in 2 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 2 of 106 > ==2962== at 0x4024F70: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:236) > ==2962== by 0x81144F6: lalloc (misc2.c:919) > ==2962== by 0x81BC14C: u_read_undo (undo.c:1001) > ==2962== by 0x80C4C09: readfile (fileio.c:2591) > ==2962== by 0x8053226: open_buffer (buffer.c:132) > ==2962== by 0x809836E: do_ecmd (ex_cmds.c:3658) > ==2962== by 0x80AE82B: do_exedit (ex_docmd.c:7620) > ==2962== by 0x80AE4E8: ex_edit (ex_docmd.c:7516) > ==2962== by 0x80A70DC: do_one_cmd (ex_docmd.c:2639) > ==2962== by 0x80A49B5: do_cmdline (ex_docmd.c:1108) > ==2962== by 0x812A22D: nv_colon (normal.c:5226) > ==2962== by 0x8123AB7: normal_cmd (normal.c:1188) > > ==2962== 1,705 (802 direct, 903 indirect) bytes in 2 blocks are > definitely lost in loss record 101 of 106 > ==2962== at 0x4024F70: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:236) > ==2962== by 0x81144F6: lalloc (misc2.c:919) > ==2962== by 0x81BBE9E: u_read_undo (undo.c:938) > ==2962== by 0x80C4C09: readfile (fileio.c:2591) > ==2962== by 0x8053226: open_buffer (buffer.c:132) > ==2962== by 0x809836E: do_ecmd (ex_cmds.c:3658) > ==2962== by 0x80AE82B: do_exedit (ex_docmd.c:7620) > ==2962== by 0x80AE4E8: ex_edit (ex_docmd.c:7516) > ==2962== by 0x80A70DC: do_one_cmd (ex_docmd.c:2639) > ==2962== by 0x80A49B5: do_cmdline (ex_docmd.c:1108) > ==2962== by 0x812A22D: nv_colon (normal.c:5226) > ==2962== by 0x8123AB7: normal_cmd (normal.c:1188) > > undo.c: > 938 uhp = (u_header_T *)U_ALLOC_LINE((unsigned)sizeof(u_header_T)); > ... > 1001 array = (char_u **)U_ALLOC_LINE( > 1002 (unsigned)(sizeof(char_u *) * > uep->ue_size)); > > If you source 'so! leak.vim' n times (n == 2 in my example) > then 2*n blocks blocks are leaked. > > Now if you add -N as follows, you also get error > "E438: u_undo: line numbers wrong" (which is an > internal error: > > $ rm -f foo* ; valgrind --leak-check=yes 2> vg.log \ > vim -N -u NONE --noplugin -c 'set undofile' \ > -c 'so! leak.vim' \ > -c 'so! leak.vim' foo > > The patch I sent earlier (which avoids wasting 1 byte > in some alloc) actually fixes one of the leaks but not both. > E438 happens with or without patch. > > I have not found how to fix this yet. Any idea?
It turns out this is not a problem with the undo file, but the undo structures becoming invalid when using ":earlier". I have fixed this in patch 7.4.441. I no longer see the leak now. Along the way I added a few more checks for the undo information that is read back from the file to be valid. -- hundred-and-one symptoms of being an internet addict: 128. You can access the Net -- via your portable and cellular phone. /// Bram Moolenaar -- [email protected] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\ /// sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\ \\\ download, build and distribute -- http://www.A-A-P.org /// \\\ help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org /// -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
