|
From: Marco T. G. e S. <ma...@ma...> - 2011-05-20 13:33:37
|
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 < > ma...@ma...> 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/ |