From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3455 invoked from network); 17 Feb 2003 10:39:19 -0000 Received: from sunsite.dk (130.225.247.90) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 17 Feb 2003 10:39:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 2860 invoked by alias); 17 Feb 2003 10:39:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 18250 Received: (qmail 2852 invoked from network); 17 Feb 2003 10:39:09 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO sunsite.dk) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 17 Feb 2003 10:39:09 -0000 X-MessageWall-Score: 0 (sunsite.dk) Received: from [62.189.183.235] by sunsite.dk (MessageWall 1.0.8) with SMTP; 17 Feb 2003 10:39:9 -0000 Received: from exchange01.csr.com (unverified) by (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id for ; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:45:57 +0000 Received: from csr.com (tinky-winky.csr.com [192.168.144.127]) by exchange01.csr.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id DQ47M0GG; Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:39:38 -0000 To: zsh-workers@sunsite.dk Subject: Re: Memory leaks found by valgrind In-reply-to: "Felix Rosencrantz"'s message of "Sat, 08 Feb 2003 10:03:25 PST." <20030208180325.69634.qmail@web10402.mail.yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:39:10 +0000 Message-ID: <13316.1045478350@csr.com> From: Peter Stephenson Felix Rosencrantz wrote: > 659 bytes in 4 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 8 of 13 > at 0x40165A60: malloc (vg_clientfuncs.c:100) > by 0x8086055: zalloc (mem.c:490) > by 0x80E2122: calclist (compresult.c:1583) > by 0x80E8750: complistmatches (complist.c:1607) Most of the amatches linked list is on the heap (according to one comment), but the widths element of each structure is dynamically allocated. It's hard to see when it should be freed. It's currently only allocated and freed in one function (calclist()); maybe that function simply needs more logic, but I can't be sure. > (This one seems to have come from children processes.) > 464 bytes in 4 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 5 of 11 > at 0x40165A60: malloc (vg_clientfuncs.c:100) > by 0x80861D5: zcalloc (mem.c:508) > by 0x807983C: addproc (jobs.c:832) > by 0x805D6BE: execpline (exec.c:1057) I presume this is because when we enter a subshell we don't completely delete the stuff in the job table, just delete a few bits of it and zero the rest out. I have a patch for this at home, but it's not a major problem. The only case I can see where it would become one was a long-lived shell instance recursively starting a subshell while the original shell exited, which isn't a normal use. -- Peter Stephenson Software Engineer CSR Ltd., Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge, CB4 0WH, UK Tel: +44 (0)1223 692070 ********************************************************************** The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. **********************************************************************