|
From: Guillaume K. <gu...@gm...> - 2008-05-17 12:59:33
|
hi, when running valgrind on my program, i get the following summary : ==32634== ==32634== ERROR SUMMARY: 0 errors from 0 contexts (suppressed: 12 from 1) ==32634== malloc/free: in use at exit: 0 bytes in 0 blocks. ==32634== malloc/free: 0 allocs, 0 frees, 0 bytes allocated. ==32634== For counts of detected errors, rerun with: -v ==32634== All heap blocks were freed -- no leaks are possible. i don't understand what "suppressed: 12 from 1" mean, is that 12 errors that were automatically removed ? are they important ? should i care about them ? thanks a lot. |
|
From: Paul F. <pa...@fr...> - 2008-05-18 19:34:19
|
Guillaume Koenig wrote: > hi, > > when running valgrind on my program, i get the following summary : > > ==32634== > ==32634== ERROR SUMMARY: 0 errors from 0 contexts (suppressed: 12 from 1) > ==32634== malloc/free: in use at exit: 0 bytes in 0 blocks. > ==32634== malloc/free: 0 allocs, 0 frees, 0 bytes allocated. > ==32634== For counts of detected errors, rerun with: -v > ==32634== All heap blocks were freed -- no leaks are possible. > > i don't understand what "suppressed: 12 from 1" mean, is that 12 errors > that were automatically removed ? are they important ? should i care > about them ? > > thanks a lot. Valgrind has a built-in set of suppressions that are well known. They are probably harmless, and even if they aren't, yo probably aren't going to want to get involved in cleaning glibc or the X11 libs so that they don't cause any more Valgrind errors. A+ Paul -- Paul Floyd http://paulf.free.fr |
|
From: Bart V. A. <bar...@gm...> - 2008-05-19 06:19:10
|
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 9:31 PM, Paul Floyd <pa...@fr...> wrote: > Valgrind has a built-in set of suppressions that are well known. They > are probably harmless, and even if they aren't, yo probably aren't going > to want to get involved in cleaning glibc or the X11 libs so that they > don't cause any more Valgrind errors. Every time I see Valgrind complaining on glibc I report this as a glibc bug. At least for the issues I reported, the glibc authors were so kind to modify glibc. Bart. |
|
From: Paul W. <pa...@bl...> - 2008-05-18 23:39:20
|
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 09:31:27PM +0200, Paul Floyd wrote: > are probably harmless, and even if they aren't, yo probably aren't going > to want to get involved in cleaning glibc or the X11 libs so that they > don't cause any more Valgrind errors. Heh - yes. As recently demonstrated by openssl/Debian, fixing valgrind errors is not always a good idea if you're not familiar with the code... -- Paul |
|
From: Guillaume K. <gu...@gm...> - 2008-05-19 08:59:53
|
ok, I understand know. I heard about that openssl story, and your point on this is interesting. Thanks for the help, Guillaume On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 1:39 AM, Paul Walker <pa...@bl...> wrote: > On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 09:31:27PM +0200, Paul Floyd wrote: > > > are probably harmless, and even if they aren't, yo probably aren't going > > to want to get involved in cleaning glibc or the X11 libs so that they > > don't cause any more Valgrind errors. > > Heh - yes. As recently demonstrated by openssl/Debian, fixing valgrind > errors is not always a good idea if you're not familiar with the code... > > -- > Paul > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > Valgrind-users mailing list > Val...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/valgrind-users > |