On 03/21/2018 08:58 PM, Kieran Duggan wrote:
I think the output I attached was misleading. Really I'm just not understanding the output that I'm getting from valgrind. Namely is seems like the memory leaks are happening outside of wine. Should I even care if a memory leak happens in libfontconfig? Does a memory leak there imply that there is an error in Wine?
Also now that I'm playing with it more, I'm not even sure if valgrind is actually testing anything. I'll attach the log in case anyone can point me in the right direction
On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 9:10 PM, Josh DuBois duboisj@codeweavers.com wrote:
Hi Kieran,
Someone else on the list is likely to be better help, but in case you're in a hurry and don't get a quick response: it looks to me like libfontconfig lacks debug symbols (which makes sense, as I'd not expect your copy in /usr/lib to have those). Do you have debug symbols for the wine functions (and if not, are you sure your wine object files include them)?
I don't use Valgrind often, but I would guess you might be able to 1.) build fontconfig yourself, with debug symbols; and then 2.) cause wine to use your debug version instead of the system one by setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH or somesuch. However, I'd also expect that the traces you most want to see are those from wine. Again, a wine hacker and more regular Valgrind user from the list may easily have better advice.
On 3/21/18 7:27 PM, Kieran Duggan wrote:
So I'm trying to run the tests with valgrind to find memory leaks but when I use valgrind I end up getting output looking something like this ==14135== 288 (256 direct, 32 indirect) bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 166 of 278 ==14135== at 0x442EB8F: malloc (in /usr/lib/valgrind/vgpreload_ memcheck-amd64-linux.so) ==14135== by 0x96B50B9: ??? (in /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ libfontconfig.so.1.9.0) ==14135== by 0x96B5829: ??? (in /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ libfontconfig.so.1.9.0) ==14135== by 0x96B6D4A: ??? (in /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ libfontconfig.so.1.9.0) ==14135== by 0x96BC19B: ??? (in /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ libfontconfig.so.1.9.0) ==14135== by 0x98E3A9B: ??? (in /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/ libexpat.so.1.6.0)
but this isn't nearly as useful as the output I see on bugzilla, which includes function calls and such I tried recompiling my build with valgrind installed on my computer and checked to be sure that the make config was detected it with grep VALGRIND include/config.h and I get
#define HAVE_VALGRIND_MEMCHECK_H 1 #define HAVE_VALGRIND_VALGRIND_H 1
so I don't think that is the problem.
It seems to me like valgrind is expecting there to be some flags or something for it to find but they aren't there. Can anyone offer some assistance?
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 5:51 AM, Henri Verbeet hverbeet@gmail.com wrote:
On 19 March 2018 at 10:01, Kieran Duggan kieranduggan15@gmail.com wrote:
Yes that is very useful! I took a look at the first one I saw on the list. It goes:
==3551== 8 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 63 of
766
==3551== at 0x7BC51061: notify_alloc (heap.c:254) ==3551== by 0x7BC5554F: RtlAllocateHeap (heap.c:1716) ==3551== by 0x5C85281: XAudio2Create (xaudio_dll.c:2159) ==3551== by 0x4A1B741: func_xaudio2 (xaudio2.c:1150) ==3551== by 0x4A1C74F: run_test (test.h:603) ==3551== by 0x4A1CBAD: main (test.h:687) ==3551==
To fix it I looked at the XAudio2Create function and noticed that IClassFactory *cf was assigned in the call make_xaudio2_factory(&IID_IClassFactory, (void**)&cf); which contains struct xaudio2_cf *ret = HeapAlloc(GetProcessHeap(), 0, sizeof(struct xaudio2_cf));
Later in the code IClassFactory_Release(cf); is used, but this wouldn't
free
up the space on the heap because of how that function is implemented.
I believe it does. Commit 45babd780f586eb8d0a93205d0998d6ce3f8396d (which was committed after the bug report), changed make_xaudio2_factory() to no longer return class factories with a zero reference count. That happens sometimes.
Unfortunately, looking over the first couple of entries in the list, it seems likely most of them are similarly already fixed. If you have the time and inclination it would certainly be useful to go over that list to figure out which ones are already fixed and which ones aren't, but that would make this a bit more of a challenge than I had intended. Sorry about that.
Still, bugzilla is not a bad place to look for things to fix. The "download" keyword should limit searches to bugs that can be reproduced with free downloads. We also have various small cleanup tasks like e.g. replacing HeapAlloc() usage with the heap_alloc() helper, or introducing usage of the ARRAY_SIZE macro. The "patches" page [1] and git log may have other examples.
Hi Kieran,
If you haven't already, have a look at https://github.com/austin987/wine-valgrind-scripts and https://wiki.winehq.org/WineAndValgrind.
To run the full test suite, I use valgrind-full.sh. To just run a single test, I do: # terminal 1: $ ~/wine-valgrind/wine start /min notepad
# terminal 2 . ~/src/wine-valgrind-scripts/vg-wrapper.sh cd ~/wine-valgrind/dlls/advapi32/tests make service.ok
The wine-valgrind-scripts repo has suppressions for fontconfig, etc. Note that you can ignore known wine issues, so if you do that, make sure to comment out its suppression!