On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 09:53:22AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 08/13/2012 01:57 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 07:45:19AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847429
> >>
> >> Spotted by valgrind:
> >>
> >> ==2390== 45 bytes
On 08/13/2012 01:57 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 07:45:19AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847429
>>
>> Spotted by valgrind:
>>
>> ==2390== 45 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 68 of 123
>> ==2390==b
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 07:45:19AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847429
>
> Spotted by valgrind:
>
> ==2390== 45 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 68 of 123
> ==2390==at 0x4A086DC: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:270)
> ==2390==
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847429
Spotted by valgrind:
==2390== 45 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 68 of 123
==2390==at 0x4A086DC: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:270)
==2390==by 0x30D060EBA0: _dl_signal_error (in /usr/lib64/ld-2.16.so)
==2390==by 0x3