Re: [OctDev] valgrind for oct files?

[Daniel J S. <dan...@ie...>]

On 08/22/2012 03:30 PM, Andy Buckle wrote:
>> On Wed, 2012-08-22 at 12:21 +0100, Andy Buckle wrote:
>>> On 22 August 2012 12:11, dirk<dir...@co...>  wrote:
>>>> Hello all -
>>>> I'm trying to learn valgrind for oct files... can anyone share a working
>>>> example I could study?
>>>> Hope so, thanks
>>>> - dirk
>>>
>>> Invoke octave from the command line of your OS, in a way that calls
>>> your oct-file function. Run the whole of octave through valgrind. You
>>> will probably want to generate suppressions by doing this and not
>>> calling your oct-file.
>>>
>>> In the past i have also used pre-processor to change around the code,
>>> so i can call parts of my code from the OS, instead of from Octave.
>>> This is much faster than running the whole of Octave through valgrind.
>>>
>>> Which bit do you want examples of?
>
> On 22 August 2012 20:58, dirk<dir...@co...>  wrote:
>> thanks for the tips Andy.
>> I suspect my issues are just newbie problems, so any&  all advice is
>> helpful.  Here's an example point of confusion:
>>
>> $ valgrind octave --eval exit&>  octave_grind.txt
>>
>> gets me this in the .txt:
>>
>> ==17994== LEAK SUMMARY:
>> ==17994==    definitely lost: 3,108 bytes in 116 blocks
>> ==17994==    indirectly lost: 27,994 bytes in 201 blocks
>> ==17994==      possibly lost: 659,439 bytes in 3,101 blocks
>> ==17994==    still reachable: 34,585,196 bytes in 6,407 blocks
>> ==17994==         suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
>>
>> which seems to be telling that I lose 3k by just starting and stopping
>> octave... hard to believe.
>>
>> If it matters, I'm running octave 3.4.2 under linux, installed via
>> apt-get.
>>
>> - dirk
>
> (ooops, I forgot to reply-all)
>
> It's common to see that. I get the same kind of thing. It is probably
> Octave (or the libraries it depends on).

The version with the bundle I'm using (Fedora 14...they are past that 
now) is also 3.4.2.  I had problems with it crashing after just a few 
operations.  I ran the valgrind command you list above and get:

==5329== LEAK SUMMARY:
==5329==    definitely lost: 268 bytes in 19 blocks
==5329==    indirectly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==5329==      possibly lost: 102,948 bytes in 2,490 blocks
==5329==    still reachable: 1,848,332 bytes in 5,439 blocks
==5329==         suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks

Could be Octave.  Could be maintainers using out-of-date library.  Hard 
to tell.  In any case, the latest Octave in the repository comes out 
with 0 bytes lost for the same test.

Dan