The version is 2.3.2.
I had messed up the source. Npw I have re-downloaded the source tarball and
recompiled it.
Please find here the correct valgrind message:
==10964== 111 bytes in 6 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 3 of 7
==10964== at 0x4020628: operator new[](unsigned)
(vg_replace_malloc.c:197)
==10964== by 0x40660FF: mysqlpp::Row::at(unsigned) const
(const_string.h:110)==10964== by 0x4066316: mysqlpp::Row::operator[](char
const*) const (row.cpp:92)
==10964== by 0x8061FFD:
btau::DBSession::retrieveLastLinkingitem(std::vector<btau::LinkingItemData,
std::allocator<btau::LinkingItemData> >&) const (DBSession.cpp:590)
==10964== by 0x8076395:
btau::ApplicationDataLogicManager::saveTimestampAndLinkingItem(btau::TimeStampData&)
(ApplicationDataLogicManager.cpp:388)
==10964== by 0x8089436:
btau::TSUMessageProcessingThread::manageTimeStampsaveRequest(TSURequest*)
(TSUMessageProcessingThread.cpp:526)
==10964== by 0x8089D6D: btau::TSUMessageProcessingThread::Run()
(TSUMessageProcessingThread.cpp:402)
==10964== by 0x809F402: Thread::StartThread(void*) (Thread.cpp:106)
==10964== by 0x369432: start_thread (in /lib/libpthread-2.4.so)
==10964== by 0x1C9A1D: clone (in /lib/libc-2.4.so)
could you please tell me if this allocated memory is not actually freed?
I am instantiating a "mysqlpp:Row" object without using the new operator
the way I showed in the previous message which is similar to this:
//...a function
//............
mysqlpp:Row row;
//..........
std::string mystring(row["row_name"]);//<<<<<<<<<<this line
causes the
valgrind message showed above.
//....end of function
Many thanks.
--------- Original Message --------
Da: plusplus@stripped
To: MySQL++ Mailing List <plusplus@stripped>
Oggetto: Re: Is method "const ColData Row::at(size_type i) const" leaking
memory?
Data: 22/11/07 02:28
>
>
>
> Thunder0 wrote:
> > ==22261== 111 bytes in 6 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 3 of
7
>
> A 111 byte memory leak wasn't a big deal even back in my DOS days...
>
> > ==22261== by 0x404B05F: mysqlpp::Row::at(unsigned) const
> > (const_string.h:123)==22261== by 0x404B3E6:
mysqlpp::Row::operator[](char
> > const*) const (row.cpp:115)
>
> This completely confuses me. There is no Row::operator[](const char*)
> at line 115 in row.cpp in any of the major past MySQL++ versions:
> 1.7.40, 2.0.7, 2.1.1, 2.2.3, or 2.3.2. The operator exists, but it is
> in a different place in all these versions. What version are you running?
>
> > std::string value(row["ID_N"]);// >>>>>> line 590 mentioned in
> valgrind
>
> Yes, this does allocate a bit of memory. The operator referenced in the
> previous quote calls ResUse::field_num(const std::string&), which
> allocates a FieldNames() object to handle the translation between field
> name and field index. But, it's destroyed when the ResUse/Result object
> gets destroyed, so the only way you should be seeing a leak is if your
> code isn't disposing of the MySQL++ objects it creates.
>
> --
> MySQL++ Mailing List
> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/plusplus
> To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/plusplus?unsub=1
>
>
>
>
--
Email.it, the professional e-mail, gratis per te: http://www.email.it/f
Sponsor:
Utilizza l'email marketing di Email.it, oltre 2 milioni di utenti
registrati tra cui trovare i tuoi futuri clienti
Clicca qui: http://adv.email.it/cgi-bin/foclick.cgi?mid=7148&d=20071126
