[Insight-developers] Valgrind need attention

[Johnson, Hans J]

It wasn't tested before.  FEM had very low code coverage. We can always
turn the new tests off :).

Seriously, perhaps we should turn those new test off until the leaks are
found and fixed.

Hans

--
Hans J. Johnson, Ph.D.
hans-johnson at uiowa.edu
Assistant Professor of Psychiatry
University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine
W278 GH, 200 Hawkins Drive

Iowa City, Iowa 52242
Phone:  319-353-8587







-----Original Message-----
From: Kent Williams <norman-k-williams at uiowa.edu>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 21:27:02 +0000
To: Bill Lorensen <bill.lorensen at gmail.com>
Cc: ITK <insight-developers at itk.org>
Subject: Re: [Insight-developers] Valgrind need attention

That's an excellent question, Bill. And when I finish the other stuff I
have to get done and my eyes stop bleeding from staring at the code for
days last week, I'll attempt to answer it.


On 7/28/11 4:16 PM, "Bill Lorensen" <bill.lorensen at gmail.com> wrote:

>Why didn't the fem code leak before the refactorization?
>
>On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Williams, Norman K
><norman-k-williams at uiowa.edu> wrote:
>
>As I explained in direct e-mail to Bill, I spent a couple of days staring
>at the FEM code and couldn't find the problems causing the remaining FEM
>valgrind leak reports.  Then I threw up my hands and Vince Magnotta has
>been putting some hours in and came to similar conclusion.
>
>
>The problem is that memory that is allocated by the ::New() method, and
>only ever assigned to smart pointers, is being reported as leaked. Which
>means that there are 3 possibilities:
>
>1. Somehow, somewhere, the reference count is getting double-incremented.
>2. There really is a leak somewhere that's eluded both Vince & I.
>3. Valgrind is wrong.
>
>My last exchange with Bill he indicated that he believed the leak was
>real.  If that's the case, it's eluded 2 reasonably intelligent &
>experienced programmers for a minimum of 40 man hours.  If someone else
>has any insights they would be extremely welcome.
>
>On 7/28/11 3:48 PM, "Nicholas Tustison" <ntustison at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I'll get to it right away.
>>Nick
>>
>>On Jul 28, 2011, at 4:09 PM, Bill Lorensen wrote:
>>
>>
>>FEM and BSpline checkins have numerous valgrind defects. There are also a
>>bunch of doxygen related defects. We need to zero these out.
>>
>>http://www.cdash.org/CDash/viewDynamicAnalysis.php?buildid=1373394
>>
>>Bill
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by
>the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is
>confidential and may be legally privileged.  If you are not the intended
>recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination,
>distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
>Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error,
>then delete it.  Thank you.
>
>________________________________
>
>
>
>



________________________________
Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is
confidential and may be legally privileged.  If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination,
distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error,
then delete it.  Thank you.
________________________________
_______________________________________________
Powered by www.kitware.com

Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html

Kitware offers ITK Training Courses, for more information visit:
http://kitware.com/products/protraining.html

Please keep messages on-topic and check the ITK FAQ at:
http://www.itk.org/Wiki/ITK_FAQ

Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-developers



________________________________
Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is confidential and may be legally privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it.  Thank you.
________________________________