On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 05:00:43PM -0500, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
> On 2/23/20 4:11 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 03:54:06PM -0500, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
> >> On 2/23/20 2:31 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 12:50:42PM -0500, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
> >>>> On 2/23/20 8:23 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 08:28:33PM -0500, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 07:33:39PM -0500, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 2/18/20 6:07 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Valgrind gave me the following error:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ==732== 112 (72 direct, 40 indirect) bytes in 1 blocks are
> >>>>>>>> definitely lost in loss record 5,165 of 5,862
> >>>>>>>> ==732== at 0x483AE63: operator new(unsigned long) (in
> >>>>>>>> /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so)
> >>>>>>>> ==732== by 0x103A62D: lyx::Buffer::cloneBufferOnly() const
> >>>>>>>> (Buffer.cpp:661)
> >>>>>>>> ==732== by 0x11E583C: lyx::(anonymous
> >>>>>>>> namespace)::copyToTempBuffer(lyx::ParagraphList const&,
> >>>>>>>> std::shared_ptr<lyx::DocumentClass const>) (CutAndPaste.cpp:582)
> >>>>>>>> ==732== by 0x11E5C6A: lyx::(anonymous
> >>>>>>>> namespace)::putClipboard(lyx::ParagraphList const&,
> >>>>>>>> std::shared_ptr<lyx::DocumentClass const>,
> >>>>>>>> std::__cxx11::basic_string<wchar_t, std::char_traits<wchar_t>,
> >>>>>>>> std::allocator<wchar_t> > const&, lyx::BufferParams)
> >>>>>>>> (CutAndPaste.cpp:613)
> >>>>>>>> ==732== by 0x11E910B: lyx::cap::copySelection(lyx::Cursor
> >>>>>>>> const&, std::__cxx11::basic_string<wchar_t,
> >>>>>>>> std::char_traits<wchar_t>, std::allocator<wchar_t> > const&)
> >>>>>>>> (CutAndPaste.cpp:1123)
> >>>>>>>> ==732== by 0x11E84F8: lyx::cap::copySelection(lyx::Cursor
> >>>>>>>> const&) (CutAndPaste.cpp:1024)
> >>>>>>>> ==732== by 0x13ECDAB: lyx::Text::dispatch(lyx::Cursor&,
> >>>>>>>> lyx::FuncRequest&) (Text3.cpp:1593)
> >>>>>>>> ==732== by 0x1767E04: lyx::InsetText::doDispatch(lyx::Cursor&,
> >>>>>>>> lyx::FuncRequest&) (InsetText.cpp:339)
> >>>>>>>> ==732== by 0x15FFC39: lyx::Inset::dispatch(lyx::Cursor&,
> >>>>>>>> lyx::FuncRequest&) (Inset.cpp:325)
> >>>>>>>> ==732== by 0x11D1B13: lyx::Cursor::dispatch(lyx::FuncRequest
> >>>>>>>> const&) (Cursor.cpp:825)
> >>>>>>>> ==732== by 0x1816F4F:
> >>>>>>>> lyx::frontend::GuiView::dispatchToBufferView(lyx::FuncRequest
> >>>>>>>> const&, lyx::DispatchResult&) (GuiView.cpp:3878)
> >>>>>>>> ==732== by 0x181B959:
> >>>>>>>> lyx::frontend::GuiView::dispatch(lyx::FuncRequest const&,
> >>>>>>>> lyx::DispatchResult&) (GuiView.cpp:4569)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It comes from the following line (Buffer.cpp:661):
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> cloned_buffers.push_back(new CloneList);
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Currently cloned_buffers is a list<CloneList *>. Would it make sense
> >>>>>>>> to make it a list of *smart* pointers instead? Alternatively we
> >>>>>>>> could make a class and then make a custom destructor that would free
> >>>>>>>> the CloneLists that the list elements point to?
> >>>>>>> This is some kind of thinko, probably on my part. The code at line 549
> >>>>>>> was supposed to be cleaning this up, but it actually only removes the
> >>>>>>> entry from the list.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If it works to make it a smart pointer of some kind, then that would
> >>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>> simplest. But I think we could just do something like:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> else {
> >>>>>>> delete(*it);
> >>>>>>> cloned_buffers.erase(it);
> >>>>>>> }
> >>>>>> Ah that makes sense.
> >>>>> Riki, I propose that you commit. Thanks for the fix.
> >>>> Just to check: You've verified this fixes the problem?
> >>> I just tried to reproduce the original error (without the fix) and could
> >>> not. I originally got the message from copying something and compiling.
> >>> I just tried doing that with the Customization and Embedded Objects
> >>> manuals, but I could not trigger the error.
> >> Committed, then.
> > Thanks for the fix. I'll continue testing LyX with Valgrind at some
> > point in the future. Right now I'm tired of the waiting. I might look
> > into the suggestions that Neven gave.
>
> Actually, that is all wrong, and now I'm very confused. The patch causes
> a double delete exception here, so I have reverted it. The line
>
> delete d->clone_list_;
>
> already does this deletion, since *it just is d->clone_list_.
>
> I've committed another patch with a shared_ptr. That has at least to help.OK thanks for your work on this. I'll keep an eye out when testing with Valgrind to see if something related comes up. Scott
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- lyx-devel mailing list lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-devel
