From: Nicholas Y. <su...@su...> - 2005-09-07 17:41:41
|
On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 12:12 -0500, John Hunter wrote: > >>>>> "Nicholas" == Nicholas Young <N.P...@wa...> writes: > Nicholas> My patch contained memory leaks which I've fixed in the > Nicholas> attachment - but I'm not that experienced in c/c++ so > Nicholas> there could be more I haven't noticed. > > You should see little or no leak if everything checks out. Thanks for the suggestion John. After following it I've found another two leaks (revised patch attached) and as a result on testing with your suggestions get following output (at the start): 0 52604 18235 1 52608 18236 2 52608 18235 3 52608 18235 4 52608 18236 5 52608 18235 6 52608 18235 7 52608 18235 8 52612 18235 9 52612 18235 10 52612 18235 11 52612 18235 12 52612 18235 13 52612 18236 14 52612 18235 15 52616 18235 16 52616 18235 17 52616 18235 18 52616 18236 19 52616 18235 20 52616 18235 21 52616 18236 22 52616 18236 23 52616 18235 24 52616 18235 25 52616 18235 26 52616 18235 27 52616 18235 28 52616 18235 29 52616 18236 30 52616 18235 Am I correct in thinking the occasional slight increase in memory is due to python not me? Nick |