On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 04:45:45PM -0700, Alan Irwin wrote: > Hi Andrew: > > I frankly don't understand the differing results that we had, and that > bothers me. In particular I don't understand why you had memory management > problems for the versions prior to your recent commit while I did not (either > reported as segfaults or valgrind memory management issues) with > Debian Lenny. To further document what I have installed on my Debian Lenny > 64-bit hardware (i.e., amd64) system the cmake output results relevant to qt > are > > -- Found Qt-Version 4.4.3 > > Do you get the same Qt version number there?
I don't because I still have the default cmake 2.6.0 installed on the Debian system. ldd shows that qt.so is linked against the Qt4 libraries and the installed version is 4.4.3. I must admit I am also confused by this. I would put it down to a 32-bit/64-bit issue, but I get the same results on a 64-bit Ubuntu system. > > One thing further I can do is to test your recent commit (and also Werner's > fixup for cmake/modules/qt.cmake). The result is I find no problems for > both ctest in the build tree and "make test" in the installed examples tree > with svn revision 9736. So from my perspective, the recent changes make no > perceptible change, i.e., I continue to get no memory management issues. > Since the changes appear to fix things up for you (even for Debian Lenny), > and don't make any new problems for me, they are obviously good changes to > make. > > However, I still don't understand why valgrind reported no issues on my > platform without your recent changes. Segfaults can come and go (although > usually a segfault does show up for one of our 31 examples if there is a > memory management issue with the device driver). Normally valgrind is > completely reliable about reporting memory management issues with device > drivers even when there is no obvious problem with segfaults. Before your > recent change, why did valgrind find many obvious memory management issues > on your system but none on mine? That result is really weird. This is not a segfault - it is a double free of memory. That should be pretty standard for valgrind to detect. I note Geoffrey's comments in a separate email, but I've always found valgrind has detected this kind of thing. The other possibility is that it is a problem further up the library chain since the issues are related to X devices. Even so, we should have the same library versions installed. I suspect the issue is due to the fact that we are doing some non-standard things with Qt. This I'm not surprised about. More worrying is this non-reproducability, even on the same Linux distribution. I think this needs close testing on as many versions and platforms as we have access to, to reassure ourselves that it really is robust. Regards Andrew ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging. Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com _______________________________________________ Plplot-devel mailing list Plplot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/plplot-devel
