Is Boost-Python tested?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view

Is Boost-Python tested?

Riccardo Rossi
Dear list,

    during the last two days i have been compiling my research code
(around 500k lines of c++) using clang (clang 2.9 as downloaded from the
svn 2 days ago).
My code relies hevily on boost python.In doing my compilation i first
compiled boost1.44 with clang (which went fine) and i later used it in
compiling my code.

Apart for minor issues the compilation went fine and the code runs
correctly through the benchamrk example, HOWEVER on exit i get a
segmentation fault.
The segmentation fault is also confirmed by valgrind.

Our code has been tested (and works correctly) using gcc, intel, sun and
msvc (this last one in windows), and provides a pretty clean valgrind
output (at least as clean as the boost python hello world example).
I am honestly a bit surprised of having such a segfault on our test
examples, and i was wandering if the boost_python stuff has been tested,
in particular with reference to the allocation of "internal_references".

please find attached the output of valgrind for the case of interest,
where i just load our library in python and i close the program.

for reference the gcc output (intel's is very similar) finishes with

==6879==     in use at exit: 1,866,386 bytes in 3,436 blocks
==6879==   total heap usage: 9,373 allocs, 5,937 frees, 4,125,837 bytes
==6879== LEAK SUMMARY:
==6879==    definitely lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==6879==    indirectly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==6879==      possibly lost: 368,951 bytes in 361 blocks
==6879==    still reachable: 1,497,435 bytes in 3,075 blocks
==6879==         suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks

As a secondary thing, i wanted to comment that the compilation time is
not better than gcc. I compiled the clang myself, so i probably did
somethign wrong. In particular i attempted habilitating optimization,
but i probably skipped something to have optimal performance. Any
suggestion on how to make it faster?

thank you in advance for any suggestion you can provide


Riccardo Rossi, Ph.D, Civil Engineer
member of the Kratos Group:
Centro Internacional de Métodos Numéricos en Ingeniería (CIMNE)
Universidad Politécnica de Cataluña (UPC)
Edificio C-1, campus Norte UPC
Gran Capitan, s/n
08034 Barcelona, España
Tel. (+34) 93 401 73 99


Los datos de carácter personal contenidos en el mensaje, se registrarán
en un fichero para facilitar la gestión de las comunicaciones de CIMNE.
Se pueden ejercitar los derechos de acceso, rectificación, cancelación y
oposición por escrito, dirigiéndose a nuestras oficinas de CIMNE, Gran
Capitán s/n,  Edificio C1 - Campus Norte UPC, 08034 Barcelona, España.


Les dades de caràcter personal contingudes en aquest missatge es
registraran en un fitxer per facilitar la gestió de les comunicacions
del CIMNE. Es poden exercir els drets d'accés, rectificació,
cancel·lació i oposició, per escrit a les nostres oficines del CIMNE,
Gran Capità s/n, Edifici C1, Campus Nord UPC, 08034 Barcelona, Espanya.


All personal data contained in this mail will be processed
confidentially and stored in a file property of CIMNE in order to manage
corporate communications. You may exercise the right of access,
rectification, deletion and objection by letter sent to CIMNE, Gran
Capitán, Edificio C1 - Campus Norte UPC, 08034 Barcelona, Spain.

cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]

clang_valgrind.log.tar.gz (13K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view

Re: Is Boost-Python tested?

Bryce Lelbach
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 19:32:40 +0200
Riccardo Rossi <[hidden email]> wrote:

I know the develops of Boost.Python; I can assure you it's very well tested.
The Boost.Python list might be able to help you.

- --
Bryce Lelbach aka wash
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)


cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]