[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
question about term_names memleak (are this bug really fixed)
From: |
Stanislav Ievlev |
Subject: |
question about term_names memleak (are this bug really fixed) |
Date: |
Thu, 30 Oct 2003 17:21:38 +0300 |
Hello Friends!
In the latest ncurses (20031004) you have said that bug with memory leak in
_nc_free_termtype fixed. But valgrind (memory leak checker) still tell me:
==29210== 28 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 2 of 2
==29210== at 0x134DBA: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:273)
==29210== by 0x804A8F1: read_termtype (read_entry.c:208)
==29210== by 0x804B382: _nc_read_file_entry (read_entry.c:394)
==29210== by 0x804B4B0: _nc_read_terminfo_dirs (read_entry.c:440)
Test program was simple:
--
#include <curses.h>
#include <term.h>
main()
{
setupterm((char *)0, 1, (int *)0);
if (cur_term) del_curterm(cur_term);
}
--
I compile it in following way:
$gcc -o test test.c libncurses_g.a
$valgrind --show-reachable=yes --leak-check=yes -v ./test 2>log
My question is: why you use so complicated algorithm for freeing of term_names?
Are memory leak still exist or my program is wrong?
There are also other memory leak:
==29210== 24 bytes in 1 blocks are still reachable in loss record 1 of 2
==29210== at 0x134942: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:153)
==29210== by 0x804BC60: _nc_home_terminfo (home_terminfo.c:56)
==29210== by 0x804B5CD: _nc_read_entry (read_entry.c:494)
==29210== by 0x80491C9: grab_entry (lib_setup.c:255)
P.S. Are any mailing list for generic (not a bugs) curses discussion exists? I
wrote some ncurses based libraries and want to consult with curses guru.
--
With best regards
Stanislav Ievlev
ALT Linux Team.
- question about term_names memleak (are this bug really fixed),
Stanislav Ievlev <=