On 05/31/2018 10:57 AM, Jiri Denemark wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 10:06:37 +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>> On 05/30/2018 06:57 PM, Peter Krempa wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 18:04:29 +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
While this leak happens in tests only, it is still worth fixing.
>>>
On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 10:06:37 +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> On 05/30/2018 06:57 PM, Peter Krempa wrote:
> > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 18:04:29 +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> >> While this leak happens in tests only, it is still worth fixing.
> >>
> >> ==12962== 2,035 (104 direct, 1,931 indire
On 05/30/2018 06:57 PM, Peter Krempa wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 18:04:29 +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>> While this leak happens in tests only, it is still worth fixing.
>>
>> ==12962== 2,035 (104 direct, 1,931 indirect) bytes in 1 blocks are
>> definitely lost in loss record 325 of 331
>>
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 18:04:29 +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> While this leak happens in tests only, it is still worth fixing.
>
> ==12962== 2,035 (104 direct, 1,931 indirect) bytes in 1 blocks are definitely
> lost in loss record 325 of 331
> ==12962==at 0x4C2CF26: calloc (vg_replace_mal
While this leak happens in tests only, it is still worth fixing.
==12962== 2,035 (104 direct, 1,931 indirect) bytes in 1 blocks are definitely
lost in loss record 325 of 331
==12962==at 0x4C2CF26: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:711)
==12962==by 0x5D285D5: virAlloc (viralloc.c:144)
==12962==
