[lxml-dev] is valgrind still used?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1d43b/1d43b6d882a3656a8259e77a0fb1108d628a7582" alt=""
Hi all, It's been a long time since I've been on this list, but I'm hoping to start hacking again. Whoo! New job. More open source hacking time. On to the questions! Is valgrind still being used anymore? I just ran :
valgrind --tool=memcheck --suppressions=valgrind-python.supp python test.py
and got: ==13242== ==13242== ERROR SUMMARY: 138 errors from 16 contexts (suppressed: 10026 from 6) ==13242== malloc/free: in use at exit: 2848232 bytes in 2981 blocks. ==13242== malloc/free: 53700 allocs, 50719 frees, 21000875 bytes allocated. ==13242== For counts of detected errors, rerun with: -v ==13242== searching for pointers to 2981 not-freed blocks. ==13242== checked 3490012 bytes. ==13242== ==13242== LEAK SUMMARY: ==13242== definitely lost: 4759 bytes in 168 blocks. ==13242== possibly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks. ==13242== still reachable: 2843473 bytes in 2813 blocks. ==13242== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks. ==13242== Use --leak-check=full to see details of leaked memory. victorng@mbdev1:~/dev/lxml$ Is this expected? Is there a Trac instance or some other bug tracker that I can look at to see what the open bugs are? Thanks! Hope to be less than useless soon. :) vic
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c6057/c6057bed8007c428c0e26b11fb68644c69f16b19" alt=""
Victor Ng wrote:
Thanks for testing. However, there have been a number of fixes for memory leaks applied to the latest SVN (I applied the last one today), which dramatically reduce the number of lost blocks. It's not zero, though, but it looks like the remaining problems are more related to Python itself. You didn't say which version you are running (0.8, I assume), but since there were many, many changes to SVN since the last version, you should really use the current SVN version when testing. I currently get this result for the trunk version: ==24747== LEAK SUMMARY: ==24747== definitely lost: 7,760 bytes in 121 blocks. ==24747== possibly lost: 16,320 bytes in 60 blocks. ==24747== still reachable: 4,521,357 bytes in 3,331 blocks. ==24747== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks.
Is this expected? Is there a Trac instance or some other bug tracker that I can look at to see what the open bugs are?
No, there is no trac support currently. Bugs are commonly reported to the mailing list, just as you did. Anyway, thanks for testing. Narayan Desai has just reported (and fixed) a few leaks this week, so, if you find anything else that should be done, I'd be glad to hear about it. Stefan
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c6057/c6057bed8007c428c0e26b11fb68644c69f16b19" alt=""
Victor Ng wrote:
Thanks for testing. However, there have been a number of fixes for memory leaks applied to the latest SVN (I applied the last one today), which dramatically reduce the number of lost blocks. It's not zero, though, but it looks like the remaining problems are more related to Python itself. You didn't say which version you are running (0.8, I assume), but since there were many, many changes to SVN since the last version, you should really use the current SVN version when testing. I currently get this result for the trunk version: ==24747== LEAK SUMMARY: ==24747== definitely lost: 7,760 bytes in 121 blocks. ==24747== possibly lost: 16,320 bytes in 60 blocks. ==24747== still reachable: 4,521,357 bytes in 3,331 blocks. ==24747== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks.
Is this expected? Is there a Trac instance or some other bug tracker that I can look at to see what the open bugs are?
No, there is no trac support currently. Bugs are commonly reported to the mailing list, just as you did. Anyway, thanks for testing. Narayan Desai has just reported (and fixed) a few leaks this week, so, if you find anything else that should be done, I'd be glad to hear about it. Stefan
participants (2)
-
Stefan Behnel
-
Victor Ng