From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1G8Iaz-0005vz-7t for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:25:17 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with SMTP id k72FNBBN003943; Wed, 2 Aug 2006 15:23:11 GMT Received: from ms-smtp-03.southeast.rr.com (ms-smtp-03.southeast.rr.com [24.25.9.102]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k72FL8wc000023 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2006 15:21:09 GMT Received: from [10.20.31.251] (cpe-066-057-226-032.nc.res.rr.com [66.57.226.32]) by ms-smtp-03.southeast.rr.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k72FL5iC008032 for ; Wed, 2 Aug 2006 11:21:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <44D0C2DB.905@electronsweatshop.com> Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 11:20:59 -0400 From: Randy Barlow User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060801) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] memory leak with gtk+-2.8.20-r1 References: <6FmCn-3KJ-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <6FmVF-4oe-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <20060802154715.d9259bb7.hilse@web.de> In-Reply-To: <20060802154715.d9259bb7.hilse@web.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine X-Archives-Salt: 5f5d591b-b0c1-4c85-b837-5edf68eaf487 X-Archives-Hash: 11bf5ef3b52cc525fe722eb7afadcd0f Hans-Werner Hilse wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 13:49:04 +0200 gwe wrote: > >> I'm sorry >> I post only the end of log file of valgrind (the entire file is very big >> ~22500 lines). >> This is the result of execute the source code : >> ==13767== LEAK SUMMARY: >> ==13767== definitely lost: 36 bytes in 1 blocks. >> ==13767== indirectly lost: 120 bytes in 10 blocks. >> ==13767== possibly lost: 40,264 bytes in 47 blocks. >> ==13767== still reachable: 118,673 bytes in 1,963 blocks. >> ==13767== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks. > > OK, but memory usage doesn't add up while the program is running, > right? I think it may be just the missing call to gtk_exit(EXIT_SUCCESS) > instead of return EXITSUCCESS. At least gtk_exit() is supposed to do > final cleanup work. Ah yes, I wasn't aware that there was a function for this. You should definitely use this in place of the delete statement because it will do deeper cleaning. R -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list