Re: [pygtk] Possible memory leak in pygi-invoke.c

[Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu sugarlabs org>]

On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 18:28, Damien Caliste <damien caliste cea fr> wrote:
> Hello,
>
>   I've worked on a patch to correct the memory leak in invoke()
> function. The patch has been submitted, see:
> https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=630271
>
> Le 03/09/2010, Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu sugarlabs org> a écrit :
>> Hi Damien, we should certainly be doing something like that. I think
>> that if make check and make check.valgrind do pass without warnings,
>> your patch is good to push.
> The make check is fine, and the make check.valgrind shows a lot of
> issues, but the current HEAD gives:
> ==32522== LEAK SUMMARY:
> ==32522==    definitely lost: 29,550 bytes in 1,316 blocks
> ==32522==    indirectly lost: 31,713 bytes in 656 blocks
> ==32522==      possibly lost: 2,071,160 bytes in 1,759 blocks
> while after the patch, we have:
> ==32541== LEAK SUMMARY:
> ==32541==    definitely lost: 4,895 bytes in 113 blocks
> ==32541==    indirectly lost: 2,640 bytes in 81 blocks
> ==32541==      possibly lost: 2,074,814 bytes in 1,767 blocks
> But, both still segfault here and there around the testproperty
> series (at least, the given memory estimations are for the roughly
> the same number of successful tests)...
>
> Beside, I think that this patch corrects the TODOs related to release
> the argument in case of error since the pygi_argument_release is moved
> to the free routine. What's your opinion ?

Ok, I see that your patch has been pushed and that make check and make
check.valgrind pass here without any kind of error.

Can you verify it's the same on your end in case we have some problem
that is dependent on the environment?

Thanks,

Tomeu

> Regards,
>
> Damien.
> _______________________________________________
> python-hackers-list mailing list
> python-hackers-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/python-hackers-list
>