On Thu Jun 14 16:25:24 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Thursday 14 June 2007 14:42:31 Jurosz Michal wrote: > > > Attached test use compreg P1, "PASM" and invokecc it 100,000 times. > > On win32 (mingw32) it consumes 70MB of RAM with r18834 (107 MB of > RAM > > with r11704). > > With Linux at r19010, the memory use jumped up to 62 MB for me. > > However, Valgrind says: > > ==24190== LEAK SUMMARY: > ==24190== definitely lost: 128 bytes in 2 blocks. > ==24190== indirectly lost: 208 bytes in 1 blocks. > ==24190== possibly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks. > ==24190== still reachable: 0 bytes in 0 blocks. > ==24190== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks. > > ==24190== 252 (44 direct, 208 indirect) bytes in 1 blocks are > definitely lost > in loss record 1 of 3 > ==24190== at 0x4006620: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:149) > ==24190== by 0x41A1170: mem_sys_allocate > ==24190== by 0x41AF37E: parrot_new_pmc_hash_x > ==24190== by 0x41AF45E: parrot_new_pmc_hash > ==24190== by 0x424930A: Parrot_Hash_init > ==24190== by 0x4203715: Parrot_default_thaw > ==24190== by 0x424934B: Parrot_Hash_thaw > ==24190== by 0x41AD9C0: visit_todo_list_thaw > ==24190== by 0x41AD703: visit_loop_todo_list > ==24190== by 0x41AE1EB: run_thaw > ==24190== by 0x419B518: init_world > > ==24190== 84 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 2 of > 3 > ==24190== at 0x4006620: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:149) > ==24190== by 0x41A1170: mem_sys_allocate > ==24190== by 0x41EC1DB: queue_init > ==24190== by 0x41ED08B: Parrot_init_events > ==24190== by 0x419F464: make_interpreter > ==24190== by 0x41D3BEB: Parrot_new > ==24190== by 0x8048860: main > > ==24190== 208 bytes in 1 blocks are indirectly lost in loss record 3 > of 3 > ==24190== at 0x4006620: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:149) > ==24190== by 0x41A1170: mem_sys_allocate > ==24190== by 0x41AF2C9: init_hash > ==24190== by 0x41AF45E: parrot_new_pmc_hash > ==24190== by 0x424930A: Parrot_Hash_init > ==24190== by 0x4203715: Parrot_default_thaw > ==24190== by 0x424934B: Parrot_Hash_thaw > ==24190== by 0x41AD9C0: visit_todo_list_thaw > ==24190== by 0x41AD703: visit_loop_todo_list > ==24190== by 0x41AE1EB: run_thaw > ==24190== by 0x419B518: init_world > > I realize the numbers don't add up, but I'm not sure that this is an > actual > leak. > > -- c >
Is this something we're still concerned about or can this ticket be closed?
