This is the mail archive of the archer@sourceware.org mailing list for the Archer project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [python] leaks from pretty printers


On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 5:14 AM, Phil Muldoon <pmuldoon@redhat.com> wrote:

> In case I missed something in my environment, can you please apply and test
> it for results? My results with the patch and following the 100 loops of the
> test are:
>
> ==10830== LEAK SUMMARY:
> ==10830== ? ?definitely lost: 251,999 bytes in 7,867 blocks.
> ==10830== ? ?indirectly lost: 1,600 bytes in 38 blocks.
> ==10830== ? ? ?possibly lost: 57,232 bytes in 209 blocks.
> ==10830== ? ?still reachable: 13,411,291 bytes in 29,753 blocks.
> ==10830== ? ? ? ? suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks.
>
> Still some work left to do, I think. But I'm curious if your results will
> match mine with this one patch.

Looks much better :-)
Here is what I see after your patch:

==19223== LEAK SUMMARY:
==19223==    definitely lost: 251,524 bytes in 7,850 blocks.
==19223==    indirectly lost: 964 bytes in 22 blocks.
==19223==      possibly lost: 14,739 bytes in 152 blocks.
==19223==    still reachable: 31,967,450 bytes in 30,236 blocks.
==19223==         suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks.


My final VG error summary attached (in case it differs from what you see).


-- 
Paul Pluzhnikov

Attachment: vg.out-20090225-2.txt
Description: Text document


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]