On Sun, 4 Dec 2005, Stephan Kulow wrote: > On Sunday 04 December 2005 09:48, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: > > On Sun, 4 Dec 2005, Stephan Kulow wrote: > > > The valgrind log is pretty much meaningless and just a warning. > > > > Any reason that you think so? I've very rarely seen valgrind > > being wrong. > > Sure, but it's a warning. And the warning says that the file written to > disc contains uninitialized bytes. But valgrind can't say if these bytes > have any meaning and for sure it's no direct reason to crash. So I say > it's meaningless in that context. Right. > > > Do you get a crash with the pango example too? > > > > No, but then again, I don't get a crash with most of problems > > that I find using valgrind and fix. > > But it shows that the problem is within firefox. It uses the API in a > way that is used nowhere else. > > > > Or a valgrind hit with firefox? > > > > valgrinding firefox takes just too long to try. :( > Hmm, you wouldn't want to read your gmail with it, but it should startup > in a reasonable time :) Did it three times, none hit the problem :(. > > > I have no problems whatsoever with firefox and the fontconfig > > > CVS. But then again I have a newer firefox version. > > > > If I slightly change my configuration, to use different fonts, I > > don't get any crashes. That's basically how memory problems are. > > If you don't get hit, doesn't mean it's not there. > No reason to tell me about it - I have valgrind test cases named after me ;) Ok, it was just GIGO ;). > Geetings, Stephan Cheers, --behdad
