On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 09:03:35 -0500, Timothy Bish
<tabish...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 11/26/2015 08:24 AM, spamtrap wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 07:06:15 -0500, Timothy Bish
>> <tabish...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/26/2015 03:07 AM, spamtrap wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 11:39:53 -0500, Timothy Bish
>>>> <tabish...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/25/2015 11:29 AM, spamtrap wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 11:07:53 -0500, Timothy Bish
>>>>>> <tabish...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/25/2015 10:50 AM, spamtrap wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 09:33:38 -0500, Timothy Bish
>>>>>>>> <tabish...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 11/25/2015 05:47 AM, spam trap wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have the following code:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> cms::Message *pMessage;
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> std::vector<std::string> propertyNames =
>>>>>>>>>> pMessage->getPropertyNames();
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> According to valgrind this leaks memory. propertyNames is on the
>>>>>>>>>> stack BTW.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ==27758== 50,039,920 (289,968 direct, 49,749,952 indirect) bytes in
>>>>>>>>>> 6,041 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 383 of 384
>>>>>>>>>> ==27758== at 0x4A075FC: operator new(unsigned long)
>>>>>>>>>> (vg_replace_malloc.c:298)
>>>>>>>>>> ==27758== by 0x5F77EF9: decaf::util::StlMap<std::string,
>>>>>>>>>> activemq::util::PrimitiveValueNode,
>>>>>>>>>> decaf::util::comparators::Less<std::string> >::keySet() const
>>>>>>>>>> (StlMap.h:866)
>>>>>>>>>> ==27758== by 0x5C3799E:
>>>>>>>>>> activemq::commands::ActiveMQMessageTemplate<cms::BytesMessage>::getPropertyNames()
>>>>>>>>>> const (ActiveMQMessageTemplate.h:109)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Any ideas?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >From a quick code inspection I don't see any case where a leak can
>>>>>>>>> occur. If you can add a test case to the existing set of unit tests
>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> the Message objects to reproduce the valgrind complaint I will look
>>>>>>>>> again.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Try adding something to
>>>>>>>>> src/test/activemq/commands/ActiveMQMessageTest.h/cpp
>>>>>>>> Where are the binaries placed for the test programs? I can't seem to
>>>>>>>> find them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Depends on how you are building them, what is the environment and build
>>>>>>> process?
>>>>>> Linux 64 bit. I've run:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> configure ....
>>>>>> make
>>>>>> make install
>>>>>> make check
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> So on Linux the autotools the build process will place the executables
>>>>> in the directory that map to the application being created.
>>>>>
>>>>> So for instance if you want to build the unit tests the executable is in
>>>>>
>>>>> ./src/test/ and is called activemq-test I believe.
>>>>>
>>>>> I generally use a build folder to keep the source and intermediate files
>>>>> separate, to test and check for leaks I use a process something like the
>>>>> following.
>>>>>
>>>>> cd activemq-cpp
>>>>> mkdir ./build
>>>>> ./autogen.sh
>>>> I get this:
>>>> "configure.ac:122: ' is not a type"
>>>> Is this a problem?
>>>>
>>>>> cd build
>>>>> ../configure --enable-shared=no CXXFLAGS="-g -O0"
>>>>> make check -j 8
>>>> "make: *** No rule to make target `check'. Stop."
>>>> [There's no makefile in the build directory]
>>>>
>>>> make -f ../Makefile also does not work:
>>>>
>>>> CDPATH="${ZSH_VERSION+.}:" && cd . && /bin/sh
>>>> /home/me/activemq/activemq-cpp-library-3.9.0/config/missing --run
>>>> aclocal-1.11 -I m4
>>>> aclocal-1.11: `configure.ac' or `configure.in' is required
>>>> make: *** [aclocal.m4] Error 1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ./src/test/activemq-test
>>>> There's no file of this name anywhere.
>>>>
>>> If you are having trouble try clone the git repo and working with that,
>>> I built that code yesterday without issue.
>> I've just tried this and I get the same result. I notice that 'make
>> check' does not even attempt to build anything in src/test. I wonder
>> if it's because cppunit is not installed in a 'standard' location?
>>
>That could be an issue, you'd need to debug it on your side to find out
>for sure.
I have built the test programs now and added a test for my case.
However I don't see the memory leak being reported by valgrind in the
test program -- strange the difference.
