From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Carsten Mattner Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: fixing memory leaks before the pretest (was: Update on the Emacs release schedule?) Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2012 17:57:38 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87vcookmxd.fsf@gnu.org> <87lipjr5jk.fsf_-_@lifelogs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1325955473 23483 80.91.229.12 (7 Jan 2012 16:57:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2012 16:57:53 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Jan 07 17:57:49 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RjZaX-0007C6-EN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 07 Jan 2012 17:57:49 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45376 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RjZaW-0000aq-SZ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 07 Jan 2012 11:57:48 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:35888) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RjZaT-0000YO-0N for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Jan 2012 11:57:46 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RjZaP-0008DH-C6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Jan 2012 11:57:44 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-iy0-f169.google.com ([209.85.210.169]:37803) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RjZaP-0008D0-6F for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 07 Jan 2012 11:57:41 -0500 Original-Received: by iacb35 with SMTP id b35so5100056iac.0 for ; Sat, 07 Jan 2012 08:57:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=k7T0xJCAKvPSVSjaBjZXTNXGuUj+dOHr4C2IXUf0Cf4=; b=GI/WOENrNQl9ik5M1CoL+4PEl8lkFFvMsDOGjq1GvXrf+r3Nha74nUqlSITc0DAfyk VZEw19HBjUOGBRnFnrBxw8khmfoK3Za//rf6Dh7JOkdDBE2abutcktOTv2OyhdwCYSfg CD22U280IgSch/mmnHh3TO4NK3s7bMMddoupE= Original-Received: by 10.42.29.6 with SMTP id p6mr9552188icc.44.1325955458354; Sat, 07 Jan 2012 08:57:38 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.50.106.132 with HTTP; Sat, 7 Jan 2012 08:57:38 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87lipjr5jk.fsf_-_@lifelogs.com> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 209.85.210.169 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:147452 Archived-At: 2012/1/7 Ted Zlatanov : > On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 15:10:38 +0800 Chong Yidong wrote: > > CY> As for the code, there are still a number of issues that need more > CY> attention, most prominently the mysterious memory leak(s) that may or > CY> may not involve Gnus and/or GnuTLS and/or Mac OS X. > > I am seeing memory growth on GNU/Linux with Gnus and GnuTLS that I don't > see otherwise without Gnus, so it's faintly possible GnuTLS is not the > determining factor. =A0I have gone over the gnutls.c code and don't see > where the GnuTLS glue could be leaking. =A0If it is, I'll need a tool lik= e > Valgrind to help me, and last time I tried that, the reports were not > helpful to me (too much data, not enough leading back to GnuTLS). =A0I > spent 2 days on this last week and meant to bring it up this week, > actually (the discussion about GnuTLS on W32 sort of distracted me :) > > Maybe someone who actually knows how to use Valgrind could help me or > try to find the leaks themselves? Tried LLVM AddressSanitizer? It's supposed to be a low-impact compile flag. http://clang.llvm.org/docs/AddressSanitizer.html >From the documentation I'm not sure it's useful for finding leaks.