Re: Valgrind and GTK

[Erik de Castro Lopo <mle+gtk mega-nerd com>]

Sven Neumann wrote:

> I agree that it would help a lot if we could in one way or another get
> rid of false positives. But my experience shows that you get pretty much
> the same valgrind warnings no matter how large your GTK+ application is.
> Your 100 line demo program will produce the same set of warnings as your
> 30000 lines application (provided that your code doesn't have leaks).

For a program that isn't leaking that would probably be correct.

However, for helloworld I get:

  ==22566== LEAK SUMMARY:
  ==22566==    definitely lost: 1,449 bytes in 8 blocks
  ==22566==    indirectly lost: 3,716 bytes in 189 blocks
  ==22566==      possibly lost: 4,428 bytes in 107 blocks
  ==22566==    still reachable: 380,505 bytes in 7,898 blocks
  ==22566==         suppressed: 35,873 bytes in 182 blocks

and for my  program (which I'm pretty sure does leak):

  ==12528== LEAK SUMMARY:
  ==12528==    definitely lost: 12,997 bytes in 366 blocks
  ==12528==    indirectly lost: 12,539 bytes in 470 blocks
  ==12528==      possibly lost: 157,240 bytes in 5,219 blocks
  ==12528==    still reachable: 920,186 bytes in 18,753 blocks
  ==12528==         suppressed: 40,629 bytes in 284 blocks

Looking at the valgrind log:

   http://www.mega-nerd.com/erikd/Blog/files/sweep-valgrind.txt.gz

for me at least, its impossible to tell which ones I should be looking
at or how to fix them.

> But still it would make everyone's life easier if one wouldn't have to
> differentiate between false and real positives manually. Perhaps
> valgrind suppression files maintained and shipped with the libraries
> would indeed be a good idea.

Is there an up to date suppressions file I should try?

Erik
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Erik de Castro Lopo
http://www.mega-nerd.com/