1. Die letzten sectionsd laufen nicht mehr am PC (seit mws patchgmo18t hat geschrieben:Hi,
wenn man den sectionsd auf nem Intel PC mit DVB Karte am Laufen hat, könnte man doch mal einen "memleak-checker" ala 'valgrind' o.ä. darauf ansetzen ? ...
- GMo -
)2.Ich hab noch nie mit 'valgrind' gearbeitet deswegen brauche hilfe/tips
Hier was ich bis jetzt zu sehen bekommen habe
Ich weiss nicht wie man es mit den Threads macht.$ valgrind --leak-check=full sectionsd
==12173== Memcheck, a memory error detector.
==12173== Copyright (C) 2002-2005, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==12173== Using LibVEX rev 1471, a library for dynamic binary translation.
==12173== Copyright (C) 2004-2005, and GNU GPL'd, by OpenWorks LLP.
==12173== Using valgrind-3.1.0, a dynamic binary instrumentation framework.
==12173== Copyright (C) 2000-2005, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==12173== For more details, rerun with: -v
==12173==
$Id: sectionsd.cpp,v 1.207 2005/11/27 12:21:15 rasc Exp $
caching 504 hours
events are old 180min after their end time
==12175== Thread 2:
==12175== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)
==12175== at 0x413936D: __pthread_manager (in /lib/libpthread-0.10.so)
==12175== by 0x4269409: clone (in /lib/libc-2.3.6.so)
==12173==
==12173== ERROR SUMMARY: 0 errors from 0 contexts (suppressed: 27 from 1)
==12173== malloc/free: in use at exit: 3,308 bytes in 3 blocks.
==12173== malloc/free: 10 allocs, 7 frees, 4,553 bytes allocated.
==12173== For counts of detected errors, rerun with: -v
==12173== searching for pointers to 3 not-freed blocks.
==12173== checked 402,984 bytes.
==12173==
==12173== 68 bytes in 1 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 1 of 3
==12173== at 0x401D432: calloc (in /usr/lib/valgrind/x86-linux/vgpreload_memcheck.so)
==12173== by 0x400DE07: allocate_dtv (in /lib/ld-2.3.6.so)
==12173== by 0x400DEC0: _dl_allocate_tls_storage (in /lib/ld-2.3.6.so)
==12173== by 0x400E0F7: _dl_allocate_tls (in /lib/ld-2.3.6.so)
==12173== by 0x413A8C6: __pthread_initialize_minimal (in /lib/libpthread-0.10.so)
==12173== by 0x4137313: ??? (crti.S:17)
==12173== by 0x4136CE7: ??? (crti.S:30)
==12173== by 0x400B913: call_init (in /lib/ld-2.3.6.so)
==12173== by 0x400BA5F: _dl_init (in /lib/ld-2.3.6.so)
==12173== by 0x400080E: (within /lib/ld-2.3.6.so)
==12173==
==12173==
==12173== 2,720 bytes in 1 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 3 of 3
==12173== at 0x401D6B8: memalign (in /usr/lib/valgrind/x86-linux/vgpreload_memcheck.so)
==12173== by 0x400DE91: _dl_allocate_tls_storage (in /lib/ld-2.3.6.so)
==12173== by 0x400E0F7: _dl_allocate_tls (in /lib/ld-2.3.6.so)
==12173== by 0x413A8C6: __pthread_initialize_minimal (in /lib/libpthread-0.10.so)
==12173== by 0x4137313: ??? (crti.S:17)
==12173== by 0x4136CE7: ??? (crti.S:30)
==12173== by 0x400B913: call_init (in /lib/ld-2.3.6.so)
==12173== by 0x400BA5F: _dl_init (in /lib/ld-2.3.6.so)
==12173== by 0x400080E: (within /lib/ld-2.3.6.so)
==12173==
==12173== LEAK SUMMARY:
==12173== definitely lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks.
==12173== possibly lost: 2,788 bytes in 2 blocks.
==12173== still reachable: 520 bytes in 1 blocks.
==12173== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks.
==12173== Reachable blocks (those to which a pointer was found) are not shown.
==12173== To see them, rerun with: --show-reachable=yes
==12175== Syscall param clone(child_tidptr) contains uninitialised byte(s)
==12175== at 0x42693FC: clone (in /lib/libc-2.3.6.so)
==12175== by 0x4269409: clone (in /lib/libc-2.3.6.so)
==12176== Warning: noted but unhandled ioctl 0x6F2D with no size/direction hints
==12176== This could cause spurious value errors to appear.
==12176== See README_MISSING_SYSCALL_OR_IOCTL for guidance on writing a proper wrapper.
==12180== Warning: noted but unhandled ioctl 0x6F2D with no size/direction hints
==12180== This could cause spurious value errors to appear.
==12180== See README_MISSING_SYSCALL_OR_IOCTL for guidance on writing a proper wrapper.
==12177== Warning: noted but unhandled ioctl 0x6F2D with no size/direction hints
==12177== This could cause spurious value errors to appear.
==12177== See README_MISSING_SYSCALL_OR_IOCTL for guidance on writing a proper wrapper.
[timeThread] time(): 16.12.2005 16:59:37, tim: Fri Dec 16 16:59:37 2005
Ich habe sectionsd auch ohne fork gestartet , aber bekamm das gleiche zu sehen.