[PATCH] Avoid Valgrind's still-reachable leak warnings

[Rafael Espíndola]

Any idea why opt is still leaking? Can you turn toy.cpp into a unit
test and include it in the patch?

On 13 May 2013 07:21, Ryo Onodera <ryoqun at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for trying my patch!
>
> I've prepared a minimal test case. Could you give it a try?
>
> Build the attached source file and run like this:
>
> $ clang++ -g -O3 toy.cpp `/path/to//llvm-config --cppflags --libs`
> `/path/to/llvm-config --ldflags` -o toy && valgrind --show-reachable=yes
> --leak-check=full ./toy
>
> Regards,
>
> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Rafael Espíndola
> <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> How are you getting these warning? I tried running
>>
>> valgrind --leak-check=full --show-reachable=yes .opt -instnamer
>> test.ll  -o test.bc
>>
>> And I get the same 96 bytes with or without your patch.
>>
>> On 1 April 2013 19:50, Ryo Onodera <ryoqun at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > (This is repost of my previous post to llvm-dev
>> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2013-March/060691.html
>> >  I sent my patch to a wrong list, sorry)
>> >
>> > Hi, I'm Ryo Onodera.
>> >
>> > This is my first post to this mailing list. Fist, thanks for creating
>> > a great library!
>> >
>> > We're using LLVM to support JIT in Rubinius (an alternative
>> > implementation of Ruby, a dynamic programming language).
>> >
>> > I'm submitting a small patch for a minor issue.
>> >
>> > It solves still-reachable leak warnings from Valgrind. Example
>> > warnings are shown at the end of this mail.
>> >
>> > As these warnings weren't considered problematic in the past(*1), I
>> > know this is really minor issue. But, I want to fix it to reduce
>> > noises when using Valgrind, not resorting to Valgrind's suppression
>> > mechanism.
>> >
>> > This patch contains no functional change. And it should cause no
>> > problem.
>> >
>> > Since this is my first patch to LLVM, please let me know any
>> > corrections. I'll greatly appreciate them and happily update my patch.
>> >
>> > Also, LLVM's codebase is really clean. It took little time to make this
>> > patch.
>> >
>> > The actual warnings are like this:
>> >
>> > ==26332== 40 bytes in 1 blocks are still reachable in loss record 5 of
>> > 10
>> > ==26332==    at 0x4C2B3F8: malloc (in
>> > /usr/lib/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so)
>> > ==26332==    by 0x165CC6C: llvm::sys::MutexImpl::MutexImpl(bool)
>> > (Mutex.cpp:49)
>> > ==26332==    by 0xD41D5A:
>> > llvm::sys::SmartMutex<true>::SmartMutex(bool) (Mutex.h:94)
>> > ==26332==    by 0xD3E81F: void*
>> > llvm::object_creator<llvm::sys::SmartMutex<true> >()
>> > (ManagedStatic.h:26)
>> > ==26332==    by 0x165AA95:
>> > llvm::ManagedStaticBase::RegisterManagedStatic(void* (*)(), void
>> > (*)(void*)) const (ManagedStatic.cpp:50)
>> > ==26332==    by 0xD3C372:
>> > llvm::ManagedStatic<llvm::sys::SmartMutex<true> >::operator*()
>> > (ManagedStatic.h:68)
>> > ==26332==    by 0x1605FE2:
>> >
>> > llvm::PassRegistry::removeRegistrationListener(llvm::PassRegistrationListener*)
>> > (PassRegistry.cpp:195)
>> > ==26332==    by 0x15F1FC5:
>> > llvm::PassRegistrationListener::~PassRegistrationListener()
>> > (Pass.cpp:211)
>> > ==26332==    by 0x15F2074: llvm::PassNameParser::~PassNameParser()
>> > (Pass.cpp:221)
>> > ==26332==    by 0x1604973: llvm::cl::list<llvm::PassInfo const*, bool,
>> > llvm::PassNameParser>::~list() (in
>> > /home/ryoqun/rubinius/ryoqun/bin/rbx)
>> > ==26332==    by 0x5EE4900: __run_exit_handlers (exit.c:78)
>> > ==26332==    by 0x5EE4984: exit (exit.c:100)
>> >
>> > *1 http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-January/046828.html
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > llvm-commits mailing list
>> > llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>> > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>> >
>
>
>
>
> --
>  ryo   | 小野寺 諒   | ryoqun at gmail.com
>    qun | Ryo Onodera | http://ryoqun.github.com/
>        |             | 090-1264-2619