I wrote:
>Thomas Kaltschmidt wrote:
>>While i agree that using RBScript is a basic functionality which should
>>certainly run without leaks, are you sure it was without problems in 4.5.3?
>
>Nope, the leak was there, too, but it was for unknown reasons rather
>insignificant
After someone pointing me to the bug ID "qdetghti", I redid my
previous leaking test and found that the leak is NOT present in RB 4.5,
but only in RB 5.5 (could not test 5.1 or 5.2 now), and the amount of
leaking I find is about the size of what the bug report mentions.
So I can assume now that it's this bug that I'm affected by.
Just one more of those bugs that broke working code and did not get
fixed. And this one was obviously even known long before I reported
it (I reported it about a week ago to David. And when I asked David
why this leak did not get fixed, he replied that I can't expect a bug
to be fixed two days after I report it. Well, that excuse backfired,
obviously.
Thomas
--
Thomas Tempelmann,
http://www.tempel.org/rb/
http://www.tempel.org/software/
_______________________________________________
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
|