[#3419] Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0 — Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>

Hello list,

19 messages 2004/09/17
[#3422] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0 — ts <decoux@...> 2004/09/17

>>>>> "A" == Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org> writes:

[#3423] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0 — Andrew Walrond <andrew@...> 2004/09/17

On Friday 17 Sep 2004 12:01, ts wrote:

[#3424] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0 — ts <decoux@...> 2004/09/17

>>>>> "A" == Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org> writes:

[#3425] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0 — Andrew Walrond <andrew@...> 2004/09/17

On Friday 17 Sep 2004 12:37, ts wrote:

[#3426] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0 — ts <decoux@...> 2004/09/17

>>>>> "A" == Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org> writes:

[#3428] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0 — Andrew Walrond <andrew@...> 2004/09/17

On Friday 17 Sep 2004 13:05, ts wrote:

[#3429] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0 — ts <decoux@...> 2004/09/17

>>>>> "A" == Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org> writes:

Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0

From: Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
Date: 2004-09-17 12:41:53 UTC
List: ruby-core #3430
On Friday 17 Sep 2004 13:30, ts wrote:
> >>>>> "A" == Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org> writes:
>
> A> I'm probably being very dense here ;) But what does that prove?
>
>  That lomem and himem are initialized when ruby_init() is called.
>

I think you must have skimmed my previous emails too quickly :) I agreed that 
himem/lomem are indeed initialised, so...

Go back to where I said

" So if lomem and himem are not the culprits, then it must be 'p' "

and reread from there.

Either I, or you, or both of us need more coffee ;)

Andrew

In This Thread