On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 10:29:28AM -0700, Michael Tremel wrote:
> Thank you for your reply. I realize that I may have been brush in
> accusing your work; I apologize. I've made the changes you've
Not the problem. The problem is that you think you have a leak but
do not provide any evidence of it, you blindly think you have a leak
in some part of the code because valgrind reports unreachable block
when running a program.
But you don't seems to have tried very basic things trying to demonstrate
the "leak" like putting the suspected section of code in a huge loop
or similar testing reproducing the problem.
> suggested, but the same results from Valgrind keep showing up. Even
> after adding xmlParserCleanup(), there are 10 allocs and 9 frees
> leaving 84 bytes "still reachable". I can post more information if you
I don't see any leak myself using the version compiled with memory debug
wei:~/XML -> cat tst.c
#include <libxml/parser.h>
int main()
{
xmlParserCtxtPtr ctxt = xmlNewParserCtxt();
xmlInitParserCtxt(ctxt);
xmlFreeParserCtxt(ctxt);
xmlCleanupParser();
xmlMemoryDump();
return 0;
}
wei:~/XML -> ./tst
wei:~/XML -> cat .memdump
08:51:36 AM
MEMORY ALLOCATED : 0, MAX was 4304
BLOCK NUMBER SIZE TYPE
wei:~/XML -> date
Mon Jun 16 08:51
the
==7788== still reachable: 144 bytes in 2 blocks.
are likely to be the per-thread data which is not indicative of a
leak.
> need it, and I will try to compile this against a library with mem-
> debug as soon as possible.
>
> Also, while I am a beginner, I have read everything there is to read
> on xmlsoft.org. I'll take a look myself at the source, but I simply
> felt it was better left in the hands of people who know what they're
> doing.
Really for this kind of things it's not a matter of reading the source
it's a matter of having a systematic and rational approach to the problem.
You think some code leaks. Just put it in a loop and run to check. Relying on
an external tool where you don't fully understand the principle or report
just can't replace trying to understand the problem.
I don't know how many thousands of people use libxml2 every day,
but I know how many people have time to answer on the list, that's not
a lot. On the other hand it takes 2mn to try the same code with
for (i = 0; i < 10000000;i++) {
ctxt = xmlNewParserCtxt();
xmlInitParserCtxt(ctxt);
xmlFreeParserCtxt(ctxt);
}
or
ctxt = xmlNewParserCtxt();
for (i = 0; i < 10000000;i++) {
xmlInitParserCtxt(ctxt);
}
xmlFreeParserCtxt(ctxt);
and see it does not leak. So the programe or even derivatives from it don't
show any memory usage growth.
You may have a leak in your code. The code you gave us to invastigate does
not reproduce it. How are we supposed to help with incomplete data/code ?
Daniel
--
Red Hat Virtualization group http://redhat.com/virtualization/
Daniel Veillard | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
_______________________________________________
xml mailing list, project page http://xmlsoft.org/
[email protected]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xml
