|
From: <mma...@ny...> - 2005-05-12 10:40:17
|
Hello, I am working on a debian testing with gcc-snapshot (sudo apt-get install gcc-snapshot). Which is currently a gcc 4.1. I am getting this kind of error (*), eventhough my command line is: GLIBCPP_FORCE_NEW=1 valgrind --weird-hacks=lax-ioctls --trace-children=yes -q --tool=memcheck --leak-check=yes --show-reachable=yes --workaround-gcc296-bugs=yes --num-callers=100 -v ./foobar Is there something else that I am missing ? Thanks a bunch, Mathieu (*) MPK ==27837== 40 bytes in 10 blocks are still reachable in loss record 1 of 4 ==27837== at 0x1B906727: operator new(unsigned) (vg_replace_malloc.c:132) ==27837== by 0x1BAA9CB5: __gnu_cxx::__pool::_M_initialize(void (*)(void*)) (in /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.4) ==27837== by 0x1BAAB025: (within /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.4) ==27837== by 0x1BAAA8D0: (within /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.4) ==27837== by 0x1BAF7A3E: std::string::_Rep::_S_create(unsigned, unsigned, std::allocator const&) (in /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.4) ==27837== by 0x1BAFBE69: (within /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.4) ==27837== by 0x1BAFCACE: std::string::string(char const*, std::allocator const&) (in /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.4) ==27837== by 0x1B9A46AF: __static_initialization_and_destruction_0(int, int) (in /home/mathieu/Dashboards/MyTests/gdcm-gcc-snaphot/bin/libgdcm.so) ==27837== by 0x1B9B11C1: (within /home/mathieu/Dashboards/MyTests/gdcm-gcc-snaphot/bin/libgdcm.so) ==27837== by 0x1B92D704: (within /home/mathieu/Dashboards/MyTests/gdcm-gcc-snaphot/bin/libgdcm.so) ==27837== by 0x1B8F00DD: (within /lib/ld-2.3.2.so) ==27837== by 0x1B8F01C9: _dl_init (in /lib/ld-2.3.2.so) ==27837== by 0x1B8E4C5C: (within /lib/ld-2.3.2.so) |
|
From: Dennis L. <pla...@in...> - 2005-05-12 11:03:51
|
At 12:40 12.05.2005, mma...@ny... wrote: >Hello, > > I am working on a debian testing with gcc-snapshot (sudo apt-get >install gcc-snapshot). Which is currently a gcc 4.1. I am getting this >kind of error (*), eventhough my command line is: > > >GLIBCPP_FORCE_NEW=1 valgrind --weird-hacks=lax-ioctls >--trace-children=yes -q --tool=memcheck --leak-check=yes >--show-reachable=yes --workaround-gcc296-bugs=yes --num-callers=100 -v >./foobar > >Is there something else that I am missing ? In the newest GCC Versions its GLIBCXX_FORCE_NEW not GLIBCPP_FORCE_NEW Carpe quod tibi datum est |
|
From: Mathieu M. <mma...@ny...> - 2005-05-13 02:50:02
|
> In the newest GCC Versions its GLIBCXX_FORCE_NEW not GLIBCPP_FORCE_NEW Thanks a bunch everybody ! |
|
From: Julian S. <js...@ac...> - 2005-05-12 11:03:56
|
Can you be clear about what problem in Valgrind this shows up? On the face of it, you ran a C++ program on Valgrind, and it reported a memory leak. Well, that's not unusual. J On Thursday 12 May 2005 11:40, mma...@ny... wrote: > Hello, > > I am working on a debian testing with gcc-snapshot (sudo apt-get > install gcc-snapshot). Which is currently a gcc 4.1. I am getting this > kind of error (*), eventhough my command line is: > > > GLIBCPP_FORCE_NEW=1 valgrind --weird-hacks=lax-ioctls > --trace-children=yes -q --tool=memcheck --leak-check=yes > --show-reachable=yes --workaround-gcc296-bugs=yes --num-callers=100 -v > ./foobar > > Is there something else that I am missing ? > > Thanks a bunch, > Mathieu > > (*) > MPK ==27837== 40 bytes in 10 blocks are still reachable in loss record 1 > of 4 > ==27837== at 0x1B906727: operator new(unsigned) > (vg_replace_malloc.c:132) ==27837== by 0x1BAA9CB5: > __gnu_cxx::__pool::_M_initialize(void > (*)(void*)) (in /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.4) > ==27837== by 0x1BAAB025: (within > /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.4) > ==27837== by 0x1BAAA8D0: (within > /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.4) > ==27837== by 0x1BAF7A3E: std::string::_Rep::_S_create(unsigned, > unsigned, std::allocator const&) (in > /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.4) > ==27837== by 0x1BAFBE69: (within > /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.4) > ==27837== by 0x1BAFCACE: std::string::string(char const*, > std::allocator const&) (in /usr/lib/gcc-snapshot/lib/libstdc++.so.6.0.4) > ==27837== by 0x1B9A46AF: > __static_initialization_and_destruction_0(int, int) (in > /home/mathieu/Dashboards/MyTests/gdcm-gcc-snaphot/bin/libgdcm.so) > ==27837== by 0x1B9B11C1: (within > /home/mathieu/Dashboards/MyTests/gdcm-gcc-snaphot/bin/libgdcm.so) > ==27837== by 0x1B92D704: (within > /home/mathieu/Dashboards/MyTests/gdcm-gcc-snaphot/bin/libgdcm.so) > ==27837== by 0x1B8F00DD: (within /lib/ld-2.3.2.so) > ==27837== by 0x1B8F01C9: _dl_init (in /lib/ld-2.3.2.so) > ==27837== by 0x1B8E4C5C: (within /lib/ld-2.3.2.so) > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by Oracle Space Sweepstakes > Want to be the first software developer in space? > Enter now for the Oracle Space Sweepstakes! > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7393&alloc_id=16281&op=click > _______________________________________________ > Valgrind-users mailing list > Val...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/valgrind-users |
|
From: Dennis L. <pla...@in...> - 2005-05-12 12:34:25
|
Am Donnerstag, den 12.05.2005, 12:03 +0100 schrieb Julian Seward: > Can you be clear about what problem in Valgrind this shows up? > On the face of it, you ran a C++ program on Valgrind, and it reported > a memory leak. Well, that's not unusual. As far as I understood him, his question was about why there is still reachable allocated memory, though he tried to force gcc stl allocator to use new instead of memory pools. In 3.x version you could force it with GLIBCPP_FORCE_NEW (as stated by valgrind faq 4.3) to use new instead, so usually all those still reachable messages go away. Now he was wondering why this does not happen any more with gcc 4.x. Its simply because the now use GLIBCXX_FORCE_NEW environment variable. I think the FAQ 4.3 of valgrind should be updated to reflect this change in latest gcc compiler greets Dennis |
|
From: Nicholas N. <nj...@cs...> - 2005-05-12 13:48:27
|
On Thu, 12 May 2005, Dennis Lubert wrote: >> Is there something else that I am missing ? > > In the newest GCC Versions its GLIBCXX_FORCE_NEW not GLIBCPP_FORCE_NEW I've updated the FAQ, thanks for the info :) N |
|
From: Jeroen N. W. <jn...@xs...> - 2005-05-12 15:08:38
|
> On Thu, 12 May 2005, Dennis Lubert wrote: > >>> Is there something else that I am missing ? >> >> In the newest GCC Versions its GLIBCXX_FORCE_NEW not GLIBCPP_FORCE_NEW > > I've updated the FAQ, thanks for the info :) > Unfortunately, the gcc version number in the updates seems incorrect. From the original post: At 12:40 12.05.2005, mma...@ny... wrote: >Hello, > > I am working on a debian testing with gcc-snapshot (sudo apt-get >install gcc-snapshot). Which is currently a gcc 4.1. I am getting this >kind of error (*), eventhough my command line is: > From the patch: +- With gcc 3.4 and later, that variable has changed name to + GLIBCXX_FORCE_NEW. Regards, Jeroen. |
|
From: Dennis L. <pla...@in...> - 2005-05-12 15:50:16
|
Am Donnerstag, den 12.05.2005, 17:08 +0200 schrieb Jeroen N. Witmond: > Unfortunately, the gcc version number in the updates seems incorrect. From > the original post: > > At 12:40 12.05.2005, mma...@ny... wrote: > >Hello, > > > > I am working on a debian testing with gcc-snapshot (sudo apt-get > >install gcc-snapshot). Which is currently a gcc 4.1. I am getting this > >kind of error (*), eventhough my command line is: > > > > >From the patch: > > +- With gcc 3.4 and later, that variable has changed name to > + GLIBCXX_FORCE_NEW. > > Regards, > > Jeroen. No, 3.4 is correct. The Variable Name has changed in 3.4 to CXX |
|
From: Jeroen N. W. <jn...@xs...> - 2005-05-12 15:58:17
|
> Am Donnerstag, den 12.05.2005, 17:08 +0200 schrieb Jeroen N. Witmond: >> Unfortunately, the gcc version number in the updates seems incorrect. >> From >> the original post: >> >> At 12:40 12.05.2005, mma...@ny... wrote: >> >Hello, >> > >> > I am working on a debian testing with gcc-snapshot (sudo apt-get >> >install gcc-snapshot). Which is currently a gcc 4.1. I am getting this >> >kind of error (*), eventhough my command line is: >> > >> >> >From the patch: >> >> +- With gcc 3.4 and later, that variable has changed name to >> + GLIBCXX_FORCE_NEW. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jeroen. > No, 3.4 is correct. The Variable Name has changed in 3.4 to CXX > It's good to know that. Thanks. Jeroen. |