On 17/03/11 08:13, Stefan Kost wrote: > What matters is the last line. When *not* run under valgrind the > addresses are the same. When run under valgrind I get a couple of > ==1989== Invalid read of size 1 > ==1989== at 0x41C9B33: vfprintf (vfprintf.c:1614) > ==1989== by 0x41D0ACF: printf (printf.c:35) > ==1989== by 0x8048785: main (udevcls.c:57) > ==1989== Address 0x4358b58 is 0 bytes inside a block of size 16 free'd > ==1989== at 0x40267ED: free (vg_replace_malloc.c:366) > ==1989== by 0x42EA335: ??? (in /lib/libudev.so.0.9.1) > ==1989== by 0x42EB38E: ??? (in /lib/libudev.so.0.9.1) > ==1989== by 0x42EB7A0: udev_device_get_devnode (in /lib/libudev.so.0.9.1) > ==1989== by 0x404A965: g_udev_device_get_device_file (in > /usr/lib/libgudev-1.0.so.0.0.1) > ==1989== by 0x804873A: main (udevcls.c:56)
In other words you have a printf that is printing data from a block of memory that has been freed - a bug in your code. Valgrind has told you exactly what is wrong - time to go and fix it ;-) Tom -- Tom Hughes ([email protected]) http://compton.nu/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Colocation vs. Managed Hosting A question and answer guide to determining the best fit for your organization - today and in the future. http://p.sf.net/sfu/internap-sfd2d _______________________________________________ Valgrind-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/valgrind-users
