| 1 |
Hans-Werner Hilse wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 13:49:04 +0200 gwe <gwenjo@××××.fr> wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>> I'm sorry |
| 7 |
>> I post only the end of log file of valgrind (the entire file is very big |
| 8 |
>> ~22500 lines). |
| 9 |
>> This is the result of execute the source code : |
| 10 |
>> ==13767== LEAK SUMMARY: |
| 11 |
>> ==13767== definitely lost: 36 bytes in 1 blocks. |
| 12 |
>> ==13767== indirectly lost: 120 bytes in 10 blocks. |
| 13 |
>> ==13767== possibly lost: 40,264 bytes in 47 blocks. |
| 14 |
>> ==13767== still reachable: 118,673 bytes in 1,963 blocks. |
| 15 |
>> ==13767== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> OK, but memory usage doesn't add up while the program is running, |
| 18 |
> right? I think it may be just the missing call to gtk_exit(EXIT_SUCCESS) |
| 19 |
> instead of return EXITSUCCESS. At least gtk_exit() is supposed to do |
| 20 |
> final cleanup work. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Ah yes, I wasn't aware that there was a function for this. You should |
| 23 |
definitely use this in place of the delete statement because it will do |
| 24 |
deeper cleaning. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
R |
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives