[Bug 36597] New: valgrind shows several definite leaks in user32/tests/msg.c
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36597 Bug ID: 36597 Summary: valgrind shows several definite leaks in user32/tests/msg.c Product: Wine Version: 1.7.19 Hardware: x86 OS: Linux Status: NEW Keywords: download, source, testcase Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: user32 Assignee: wine-bugs(a)winehq.org Reporter: austinenglish(a)gmail.com ==27824== 28 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 294 of 1,006 ==27824== at 0x7BC4C6DF: notify_alloc (heap.c:255) ==27824== by 0x7BC50F23: RtlAllocateHeap (heap.c:1716) ==27824== by 0x5163EB8: DIALOG_get_info (defdlg.c:342) ==27824== by 0x51697B0: DIALOG_CreateIndirect (dialog.c:675) ==27824== by 0x5169BF0: CreateDialogIndirectParamAorW (dialog.c:763) ==27824== by 0x5169C41: CreateDialogIndirectParamA (dialog.c:772) ==27824== by 0x5169AF4: CreateDialogParamA (dialog.c:737) ==27824== by 0x4D388A8: test_dialog_messages (msg.c:11563) ==27824== by 0x4D4745E: func_msg (msg.c:14588) ==27824== by 0x4DA6978: run_test (test.h:584) ==27824== by 0x4DA6D67: main (test.h:654) ==27824== ==27824== 28 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 296 of 1,006 ==27824== at 0x7BC4C6DF: notify_alloc (heap.c:255) ==27824== by 0x7BC50F23: RtlAllocateHeap (heap.c:1716) ==27824== by 0x5163EB8: DIALOG_get_info (defdlg.c:342) ==27824== by 0x51697B0: DIALOG_CreateIndirect (dialog.c:675) ==27824== by 0x5169BF0: CreateDialogIndirectParamAorW (dialog.c:763) ==27824== by 0x5169C41: CreateDialogIndirectParamA (dialog.c:772) ==27824== by 0x5169AF4: CreateDialogParamA (dialog.c:737) ==27824== by 0x4D38CA5: test_EndDialog (msg.c:11609) ==27824== by 0x4D47463: func_msg (msg.c:14589) ==27824== by 0x4DA6978: run_test (test.h:584) ==27824== by 0x4DA6D67: main (test.h:654) ==27824== ==27824== 68 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 504 of 1,006 ==27824== at 0x7BC4C6DF: notify_alloc (heap.c:255) ==27824== by 0x7BC50F23: RtlAllocateHeap (heap.c:1716) ==27824== by 0x7BC32765: RtlCreateActivationContext (actctx.c:4506) ==27824== by 0x7B827590: CreateActCtxW (actctx.c:124) ==27824== by 0x4D261D0: test_create (msg.c:6876) ==27824== by 0x4D26E87: test_interthread_messages (msg.c:7004) ==27824== by 0x4D473D9: func_msg (msg.c:14568) ==27824== by 0x4DA6978: run_test (test.h:584) ==27824== by 0x4DA6D67: main (test.h:654) ==27824== -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36597 Austin English <austinenglish(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |valgrind -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36597 Sebastian Lackner <sebastian(a)fds-team.de> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |sebastian(a)fds-team.de --- Comment #1 from Sebastian Lackner <sebastian(a)fds-team.de> --- The last one should already be fixed by the recent patches, can you confirm this? * http://source.winehq.org/patches/data/105217 * http://source.winehq.org/patches/data/105222 * http://source.winehq.org/patches/data/105223 -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36597 --- Comment #2 from Austin English <austinenglish(a)gmail.com> --- (In reply to Sebastian Lackner from comment #1)
The last one should already be fixed by the recent patches, can you confirm this?
* http://source.winehq.org/patches/data/105217 * http://source.winehq.org/patches/data/105222 * http://source.winehq.org/patches/data/105223
It's not: ==1365== 68 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 517 of 1,047 ==1365== at 0x7BC49369: notify_alloc (heap.c:255) ==1365== by 0x7BC4D59F: RtlAllocateHeap (heap.c:1716) ==1365== by 0x7BC31C49: RtlCreateActivationContext (actctx.c:4506) ==1365== by 0x7B827493: CreateActCtxW (actctx.c:124) ==1365== by 0x4DDE030: test_create (msg.c:6876) ==1365== by 0x4DDEB9F: test_interthread_messages (msg.c:7004) ==1365== by 0x4DF9625: func_msg (msg.c:14568) ==1365== by 0x4E4B87B: run_test (test.h:584) ==1365== by 0x4E4BC47: main (test.h:654) ==1365== -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36597 --- Comment #3 from Sebastian Lackner <sebastian(a)fds-team.de> --- Created attachment 48864 --> https://bugs.winehq.org/attachment.cgi?id=48864 user32/tests: Add a missing call to ReleaseActCtx(). Ah, you're right. Didn't notice they made the same mistake as in the other tests, sorry :/ Does this one finally fix it? -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36597 --- Comment #4 from Austin English <austinenglish(a)gmail.com> --- (In reply to Sebastian Lackner from comment #3)
Created attachment 48864 [details] user32/tests: Add a missing call to ReleaseActCtx().
Ah, you're right. Didn't notice they made the same mistake as in the other tests, sorry :/ Does this one finally fix it?
Works, thanks. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36597 --- Comment #5 from Sebastian Lackner <sebastian(a)fds-team.de> --- Regarding the new valgrind complains you pointed out on IRC ( http://pastebin.com/UQ7Qjagi ): They don't seem to be related at my opinion, except there is also an additional test failure. Is there any? BTW: Do you already have any clue why we have all the test failures in user32/tests/msg.c when running with Valgrind (I assume they aren't there without Valgrind on your machine)? It looks like they start even before the first Valgrind warning, which is a bit weird?! -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36597 --- Comment #6 from Austin English <austinenglish(a)gmail.com> --- (In reply to Sebastian Lackner from comment #5)
Regarding the new valgrind complains you pointed out on IRC ( http://pastebin.com/UQ7Qjagi ): They don't seem to be related at my opinion, except there is also an additional test failure. Is there any?
BTW: Do you already have any clue why we have all the test failures in user32/tests/msg.c when running with Valgrind (I assume they aren't there without Valgrind on your machine)? It looks like they start even before the first Valgrind warning, which is a bit weird?!
Yeah, some test failures: msg.c:9145: Test failed: ScrollWindowEx: 10: the msg sequence is not complete: expected 0000 - actual 001f msg.c:6976: Test failed: MsgWaitForMultipleObjects failed 102 msg.c:13540: Test failed: key press only: 0: the msg sequence is not complete: expected 0100 - actual 0000 msg.c:13546: Test failed: unexpected key state 0 msg.c:13552: Test failed: key press repeat: 0: the msg sequence is not complete: expected 0100 - actual 0000 msg.c:13558: Test failed: unexpected key state 0 msg.c:13564: Test failed: key release repeat: 0: the msg sequence is not complete: expected 0101 - actual 0000 (those may be timing related, though). -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36597 --- Comment #7 from Sebastian Lackner <sebastian(a)fds-team.de> --- I have submitted the patch because its very unlikely (=almost impossible) that its related. The other failures are all in completely different areas of the test. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36597 Austin English <austinenglish(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed by SHA1| |34f8053efe0c1e7ec11fd98e3de | |78e07cad6d335 Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #8 from Austin English <austinenglish(a)gmail.com> --- https://source.winehq.org/git/wine.git/commitdiff/34f8053efe0c1e7ec11fd98e3d... -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36597 Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |CLOSED --- Comment #9 from Alexandre Julliard <julliard(a)winehq.org> --- Closing bugs fixed in 1.7.21. -- Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
participants (1)
-
wine-bugs＠winehq.org