Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals
  1. POValgrind memcheck result analysis of a bison/flex parser
    text
    copied!<p>I am running memcheck on my program and i'm trying to solve the memory issues.</p> <p>Memcheck output : </p> <pre><code>==29633== 3,443 (128 direct, 3,315 indirect) bytes in 2 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 7 of 8 ==29633== at 0x4A07D2E: operator new(unsigned long) (vg_replace_malloc.c:261) ==29633== by 0x42027F: PDcbk(cpfrCallbackType_e, Powerdomain*) (NetExtractor.cpp:1243) ==29633== by 0x413DBA: cpfparse() (cpf.y:120) ==29633== by 0x42039B: loadCPF(char*) (NetExtractor.cpp:1253) ==29633== by 0x420E5D: main (NetExtractor.cpp:1399) ==29633== LEAK SUMMARY: ==29633== definitely lost: 128 bytes in 2 blocks ==29633== indirectly lost: 3,315 bytes in 10 blocks ==29633== possibly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks ==29633== still reachable: 16,458 bytes in 3 blocks ==29633== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks </code></pre> <p>Line 1253 of NetExtractor is : </p> <pre><code>powerdomainMap.insert(Powerdomain_pair(powerdomain-&gt;getName(),new Powerdomain(*powerdomain))); </code></pre> <p>Info to understand the code : </p> <pre><code>PowerdomainHashMap powerdomainMap; typedef hash_map&lt;const string, Powerdomain*, strptrhash, strptrequal&gt; PowerdomainHashMap; typedef pair&lt;const string, Powerdomain*&gt; Powerdomain_pair; </code></pre> <p>For now my guess is that there isn't really a leak because i still can access the newly created powerdomain from my hashmap and that valgrind isn't able to see that.</p> <p>Am I right ? If not can someone explain me ?</p> <p>Thanks and feel free to ask code details as i only pasted what i thought was relevant but i might have missed something.</p>
 

Querying!

 
Guidance

SQuiL has stopped working due to an internal error.

If you are curious you may find further information in the browser console, which is accessible through the devtools (F12).

Reload