diff options
author | root <root> | 2008-05-20 20:00:34 +0000 |
---|---|---|
committer | root <root> | 2008-05-20 20:00:34 +0000 |
commit | c204ee30e962b3af31eb37c9ba3154d5cebaba04 (patch) | |
tree | 85be8ebc104e29e0d434c4a4d8ea5a30070122a7 /ev.pod | |
parent | e41363f983e45e61b9a6f6b1b2f906c7d39c5a54 (diff) |
*** empty log message ***
Diffstat (limited to 'ev.pod')
-rw-r--r-- | ev.pod | 26 |
1 files changed, 26 insertions, 0 deletions
@@ -3354,6 +3354,32 @@ implementations implementing IEEE 754 (basically all existing ones). If you know of other additional requirements drop me a note. +=head1 VALGRIND + +Valgrind has a special section here because it is a popular tool that is +highly useful, but valgrind reports are very hard to interpret. + +If you think you found a bug (memory leak, uninitialised data access etc.) +in libev, then check twice: If valgrind reports something like: + + ==2274== definitely lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks. + ==2274== possibly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks. + ==2274== still reachable: 256 bytes in 1 blocks. + +then there is no memory leak. Similarly, under some circumstances, +valgrind might report kernel bugs as if it were a bug in libev, or it +might be confused (it is a very good tool, but only a tool). + +If you are unsure about something, feel free to contact the mailing list +with the full valgrind report and an explanation on why you think this is +a bug in libev. However, don't be annoyed when you get a brisk "this is +no bug" answer and take the chance of learning how to interpret valgrind +properly. + +If you need, for some reason, empty reports from valgrind for your project +I suggest using suppression lists. + + =head1 AUTHOR Marc Lehmann <libev@schmorp.de>. |