Closed Bug 29355 Opened 25 years ago Closed 18 years ago

leaking nsThread

Categories

(Core :: XPCOM, defect, P3)

x86
Windows NT
defect

Tracking

()

RESOLVED WORKSFORME
Future

People

(Reporter: sspitzer, Unassigned)

References

Details

(Keywords: memory-leak, verifyme)

Attachments

(3 files)

I'm working on a patch to fix the leaking of nsThread. I've got a little more work to do, before I can hand it off to warren. most of the nsThread.cpp code is written by warren, so he gets to be the lucky owner of this bug.
whoops, wrong product.
Component: Back End → XPCOM
Product: MailNews → Browser
QA Contact: lchiang → leger
Which nsThread is leaking? I know they don't leak in general for necko.
Target Milestone: M15
here's a patch. I just talked to warren, and there are problems with this patch, but I'm attaching it for completeness. other problems with this patch are it uses a static nsCOMPtr.
attaching the refcount balanced subtree. setenv XPCOM_MEM_REFCNT_LOG log-file.dat setenv XPCOM_MEM_LOG_CLASSES nsThread ./mozilla http://www.yahoo.com perl -w ~/find-leakers.pl log-file.dat perl -w ~/make-tree.pl --object 0x0805A260 --ignore-balanced < ./log-file.dat > ~/tree.txt
from a phone conversation with warren: 1) stomp one in the xpcom shutdown (and not by using an nsCOMPtr, like I did in my patch) 2) is nspr calling our Exit() function?
I think there are 2 things going on here: 1. nspr isn't calling our destructor (nsThread::Exit) when it quits the main thread of the app. Cc'ing wtc. 2. I suspect that imap is still going to have thread problems because nowhere in your code do you join with the imap thread to synchronize shutdown with it. I'm attaching my patches to work around the first problem. Let me know if they look ok. I also am cleaning up the global allocator too. Note that I also filed bug 29621 about the nsDirectoryService leak
testing / reviewing patch now.
Moving non-essential, non-beta2 and performance-related bugs to M17.
Target Milestone: M15 → M17
post-beta2
Target Milestone: M17 → M18
What happened with this? I forget whether the code went in already or not.
I thought you checked something in a one point.
Marking this fixed then.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 25 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Anything I can do to verify?
Maybe look at the bloat log on tinderbox?
- Per last comments, and no reopen - Marking Verified/Fixed. Please reopen if still a problem.
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
You obviously didn't look at tinderbox, because the leak is still there. Reopening.
Status: VERIFIED → REOPENED
Resolution: FIXED → ---
Updating QA Contact
Keywords: verifyme
QA Contact: leger → warren
Moving Warren's thread bugs from his circular file to mine, because I was told it was the thing to do. Anyone who actually wants these bugs, now, feel free to correct my hastiness.
Assignee: warsome → danm
Status: REOPENED → NEW
Target Milestone: M18 → mozilla0.9
So is this leak still current or fixed?
Target Milestone: mozilla0.9 → mozilla1.0
Blocks: 92580
No longer blocks: 92580
This bug seems to have a patch. Could: - the whiteboad be updated? - the patch be retested and fixed.
Bugs targeted at mozilla1.0 without the mozilla1.0 keyword moved to mozilla1.0.1 (you can query for this string to delete spam or retrieve the list of bugs I've moved)
Target Milestone: mozilla1.0 → mozilla1.0.1
Target Milestone: mozilla1.0.1 → ---
Target Milestone: --- → Future
Assignee: danm.moz → nobody
QA Contact: mozilla.5.warren → xpcom
Certainly not a problem anymore after the thread manager landing.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 25 years ago18 years ago
Resolution: --- → WORKSFORME
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Created:
Updated:
Size: