[#3358] Fwd: fastcgi & continuations (Re: Idea: Webshare) — Patrick May <patrick@...>
Hello,
8 messages
2004/09/09
[#3359] Re: Fwd: fastcgi & continuations (Re: Idea: Webshare)
— Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net>
2004/09/09
Patrick May (patrick@hexane.org) wrote:
[#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:
[#3430] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
2004/09/17
On Friday 17 Sep 2004 13:30, ts wrote:
[#3431] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— ts <decoux@...>
2004/09/17
>>>>> "A" == Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org> writes:
[#3432] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
2004/09/17
On Friday 17 Sep 2004 13:50, ts wrote:
[#3433] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
2004/09/17
There is a minor flaw in my analysis toward the end; ignore previous email
[#3434] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
2004/09/17
On Friday 17 Sep 2004 13:50, ts wrote:
[#3437] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
2004/09/17
Hi,
Memory-leak --- block/exception related
From:
Johan Holmberg <holmberg@...>
Date:
2004-09-19 12:17:29 UTC
List:
ruby-core #3456
I think I've found a memory leak in recent versions of Ruby
(post 1.8.1 versions).
It occurs while running "test/unit", but I think it is a problem in
the core interpreter.
For details see the comments in the testcase file below.
/Johan Holmberg
############################################################
# Filename: TC_memory_leak.rb
#
# Demonstration of yield/block/exception(???) related memory leak.
# Run it in the two following ways:
#
# $ ruby TC_memory_leak.rb --name=test_memory_leak
# $ ruby TC_memory_leak.rb --name=test_no_memory_leak
#
# and note the difference by looking at the Ruby process
# with top(1) in another window. The first will "eat" memory.
#
# The only difference is that "assert_raises" is used in the first case
# and "assert_raise" (with no "s") in the second. "assert_raises" is
# defined like this:
#
# def assert_raises(*args, &block)
# assert_raise(*args, &block)
# end
#
# For some reason this indirection causes a memory leak.
#
# Ruby 1.8.1 is not affected.
# But both the latest on the "CVS-mainline" and on the "ruby_1_8" branch
# seem to be affected by the leak.
#
require 'test/unit'
class TestMemoryLeak < Test::Unit::TestCase
def test_memory_leak
10_000_000.times {
assert_raises(Errno::ENOENT) { raise Errno::ENOENT }
}
end
def test_no_memory_leak
10_000_000.times {
assert_raise(Errno::ENOENT) { raise Errno::ENOENT }
}
end
end
############################################################
# End of TC_memory_leak.rb
############################################################