On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 07:17:42PM +0100, Roland Schwarz wrote:
You might try the below code snippet, which gives me the same valgrind report than the example using Boost.Thread:
#include
void* fn(void* p) { return NULL; }
int main() { pthread_t th; pthread_create(&th, NULL, fn, NULL); pthread_join(th, NULL); return 0; }
I noticed with the straight pthread code that if I compiled it as ANSI C, the leak was smaller. It sure seems like this should be a well known issue. Here is the ANSI C (gcc) valgrind report: ==5584== LEAK SUMMARY: ==5584== definitely lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks. ==5584== possibly lost: 136 bytes in 1 blocks. ==5584== still reachable: 0 bytes in 0 blocks. ==5584== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks. Here is the same code but compiled with C++ (g++): ==5568== LEAK SUMMARY: ==5568== definitely lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks. ==5568== possibly lost: 144 bytes in 1 blocks. ==5568== still reachable: 0 bytes in 0 blocks. Thanks, I guess it's not a boost issue at all. Pete
_______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users