[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [bug-gawk] Memory leak
From: |
arnold |
Subject: |
Re: [bug-gawk] Memory leak |
Date: |
Thu, 30 Mar 2017 01:04:22 -0600 |
User-agent: |
Heirloom mailx 12.4 7/29/08 |
Make that 263 meg. Just checked.
I am comfortable that we don't have a true memory leak.
It's on my TODO list to try to reduce the overhead of array storage, but
that won't be in time for the next release.
Thanks,
Arnold
address@hidden wrote:
> "Andrew J. Schorr" <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > You might need to run valgrind with --leak-check=full --show-reachable=yes
> > to
> > get to the bottom of this. I don't see any obvious leaks when I run that on
> > the
> > 344-record file that you sent.
>
> That would be helpful.
>
> I ran gawk on a ~ 20 megabyte file and it hit a steady size as shown by
> top. I think that there aren't any real leaks here. Valgrind is generally
> good about reporting real leaks as "definitely lost" and I have yet to
> see that in this instance.
>
> It may be that we could reduce gawk's memory usage for arrays, but
> that's a different issue from a leak.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Arnold
- Re: [bug-gawk] Memory leak, (continued)
- Re: [bug-gawk] Memory leak, arnold, 2017/03/28
- Re: [bug-gawk] Memory leak, Andrew J. Schorr, 2017/03/28
- Re: [bug-gawk] Memory leak, arnold, 2017/03/28
- Re: [bug-gawk] Memory leak, Andrew J. Schorr, 2017/03/28
- Re: [bug-gawk] Memory leak, Stephane Delsert, 2017/03/29
- Re: [bug-gawk] Memory leak, Andrew J. Schorr, 2017/03/29
- Re: [bug-gawk] Memory leak, arnold, 2017/03/29
- Re: [bug-gawk] Memory leak,
arnold <=
- Re: [bug-gawk] Memory leak, Andrew J. Schorr, 2017/03/30
- Re: [bug-gawk] Memory leak, Stephane Delsert, 2017/03/30
- Re: [bug-gawk] Memory leak, Andrew J. Schorr, 2017/03/30
- Re: [bug-gawk] Memory leak, Stephane Delsert, 2017/03/30
- Re: [bug-gawk] Memory leak, Andrew J. Schorr, 2017/03/30
- Re: [bug-gawk] Memory leak, Stephane Delsert, 2017/03/31
- Re: [bug-gawk] Memory leak, Andrew J. Schorr, 2017/03/31