On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 05:00:43PM -0500, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
> On 2/23/20 4:11 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 03:54:06PM -0500, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
> >> On 2/23/20 2:31 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 12:50:42PM -0500, Richard
On 2/23/20 4:11 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 03:54:06PM -0500, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
>> On 2/23/20 2:31 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>>> On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 12:50:42PM -0500, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
On 2/23/20 8:23 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Tue,
On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 03:54:06PM -0500, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
> On 2/23/20 2:31 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 12:50:42PM -0500, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
> >> On 2/23/20 8:23 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 08:28:33PM -0500, Scott
On 2/23/20 2:31 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 12:50:42PM -0500, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
>> On 2/23/20 8:23 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 08:28:33PM -0500, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 07:33:39PM -0500, Richard Kimberly
On Sun, Feb 23, 2020 at 12:50:42PM -0500, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
> On 2/23/20 8:23 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 08:28:33PM -0500, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 07:33:39PM -0500, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
> >>> On 2/18/20 6:07 PM, Scott
On 2/23/20 8:23 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 08:28:33PM -0500, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 07:33:39PM -0500, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
>>> On 2/18/20 6:07 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
Valgrind gave me the following error:
==732== 112
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 08:28:33PM -0500, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 07:33:39PM -0500, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
> > On 2/18/20 6:07 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > > Valgrind gave me the following error:
> > >
> > > ==732== 112 (72 direct, 40 indirect) bytes in 1 blocks
On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 08:52:18AM +, Neven Sajko wrote:
> > Well, actually the hardest part is waiting because LyX is very slow when
> > run under valgrind.
>
> Try sanitizers instead. They are instrumentation that GCC or Clang can
> include in executables. They do basically the same thing
My instructions for the C compiler and linker command line were wrong:
instead of -fsanitize=asan , use -fsanitize=address or
-fsanitize=thread or -fsanitize=undefined or -fsanitize=memory .
And, of course, include debugging symbols with "-g".
Regards,
Neven Sajko
--
lyx-devel mailing list
> Well, actually the hardest part is waiting because LyX is very slow when run
> under valgrind.
Try sanitizers instead. They are instrumentation that GCC or Clang can
include in executables. They do basically the same thing as Valgrind,
but should be much faster and since you are already
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 07:33:39PM -0500, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
> On 2/18/20 6:07 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > Valgrind gave me the following error:
> >
> > ==732== 112 (72 direct, 40 indirect) bytes in 1 blocks are definitely
> > lost in loss record 5,165 of 5,862
> > ==732==at
On 2/18/20 6:07 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> Valgrind gave me the following error:
>
> ==732== 112 (72 direct, 40 indirect) bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost
> in loss record 5,165 of 5,862
> ==732==at 0x483AE63: operator new(unsigned long) (in
>
Valgrind gave me the following error:
==732== 112 (72 direct, 40 indirect) bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in
loss record 5,165 of 5,862
==732==at 0x483AE63: operator new(unsigned long) (in
/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so)
==732==by
13 matches
Mail list logo
