From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7506 invoked by alias); 30 Oct 2006 20:37:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 7498 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Oct 2006 20:37:59 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.palmsource.com (HELO mx2.palmsource.com) (12.7.175.14) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:37:51 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.domain.tld (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31A0CFBAA3; Mon, 30 Oct 2006 12:37:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.palmsource.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx2.palmsource.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 28161-04-2; Mon, 30 Oct 2006 12:37:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from ussunex01.palmsource.com (unknown [192.168.101.9]) by mx2.palmsource.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 457A1F9E21; Mon, 30 Oct 2006 12:37:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from 192.168.92.105 ([192.168.92.105]) by ussunex01.palmsource.com ([192.168.101.9]) via Exchange Front-End Server owa.palmsource.com ([10.0.20.17]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:37:48 +0000 Received: from svmsnyderlnx by owa.palmsource.com; 30 Oct 2006 12:37:48 -0800 Subject: Re: Memleaks? From: Michael Snyder To: Fabian Cenedese Cc: gdb@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.1.20061030165930.01856ec0@NT_SERVER> References: <5.2.0.9.1.20061030123115.0185cec0@NT_SERVER> <5.2.0.9.1.20061030123115.0185cec0@NT_SERVER> <5.2.0.9.1.20061030165930.01856ec0@NT_SERVER> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:37:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1162240667.9408.28.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.1 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-10/txt/msg00305.txt.bz2 On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 17:01 +0100, Fabian Cenedese wrote: > At 08:45 30.10.2006 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > >On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 12:40:56PM +0100, Fabian Cenedese wrote: > >> I admit that I used not a state-of-the-art gdb, but I don't think that > >> this was changed recently. I'd be pleased if you can correct me. > >> > >> GNU gdb 6.2.50_2004-10-14-cvs > > > >This is two years old; I can't really speculate on what has changed > >since then. It may be simple memory leaks, or it may be something more > >complex. > > Actually 6.5 behaves the same as 6.2.5. The difference was not the > version but the calling. When started with "gdb --readnow" every file > read will leave some memory behind and use more and more. So it > seems that the full symbols are not cleaned up as well as the partial > symbols. It's not at all surprising that that would make a difference. With --readnow, you're going to do an enormous amount of mallocing.