I’ll raise the point at our Tues telecon and see who among them might have the
cycles to address this as I’ll be on the road with limited time over the next
week, and then we’ll be hitting the holidays.
> On Dec 13, 2014, at 11:12 AM, Eric Chamberland
> wrote:
>
> On 12/12/2014 01:12 PM, Ral
On 12/12/2014 01:12 PM, Ralph Castain wrote:
I just checked it with —enable-memchecker —with-valgrind and found that many of
these are legitimate leaks. We can take a look at them, though as I said,
perhaps may wait for 1.8.5 as I wouldn’t hold up 1.8.4 for it.
wait!
When end-developpers of
I just checked it with —enable-memchecker —with-valgrind and found that many of
these are legitimate leaks. We can take a look at them, though as I said,
perhaps may wait for 1.8.5 as I wouldn’t hold up 1.8.4 for it.
> On Dec 12, 2014, at 9:26 AM, Eric Chamberland
> wrote:
>
> On 12/12/2014
On 12/12/2014 11:38 AM, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) wrote:
Did you configure OMPI with --enable-memchecker?
No, only "--prefix="
Eric
Did you configure OMPI with --enable-memchecker?
On Dec 12, 2014, at 8:35 AM, Ralph Castain wrote:
> We have made more of an effort to get valgrind clean on the master - haven’t
> brought all of it across due to the desire to minimize change in 1.8
>
> I’ll see what can be done, probably more
We have made more of an effort to get valgrind clean on the master - haven’t
brought all of it across due to the desire to minimize change in 1.8
I’ll see what can be done, probably more for 1.8.5 at this point. Most of these
look like legitimate leaks that should be addressed as opposed to supp
On 12/11/2014 05:45 AM, Ralph Castain wrote:
...
by the reporters. Still, I would appreciate a fairly thorough testing as
this is expected to be the last 1.8 series release for some time.
Is is relevant to report valgrind leaks? Maybe they are "normal" or
not, I don't know. If they are norm
