After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 474477 - Big memory leak
Big memory leak
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 504913
Product: evince
Classification: Core
Component: general
2.19.x
Other All
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: Evince Maintainers
Evince Maintainers
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2007-09-07 08:32 UTC by Maciej (Matthew) Piechotka
Modified: 2008-05-06 14:39 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.19/2.20

Attachments
Valgrid log (3.73 KB, application/x-gzip)
2007-09-07 16:46 UTC, Maciej (Matthew) Piechotka 		Details

Description Maciej (Matthew) Piechotka 2007-09-07 08:32:38 UTC 
Please describe the problem:
After loading a 100 MiB file memory consumption grows (at least it got once 1 GiB and once 600 MiB).

Steps to reproduce:
1. Open file
2. Read it

Actual results:
Memory gonsuption grows a lot

Expected results:
It consumes only some memory

Does this happen every time?
Yes

Other information:
Comment 1 Carlos Garcia Campos 2007-09-07 08:57:09 UTC 
Does it happen with any pdf file? could you provide a valgrind log file or something like that?
Comment 2 Maciej (Matthew) Piechotka 2007-09-07 16:46:12 UTC 
Created attachment 95141 [details]
Valgrid log

Eighter effect is small or only in this file. I can't publish the file due to copyrights unfortunatly.
Comment 3 Carlos Garcia Campos 2007-09-07 16:55:52 UTC 
hmm, I think it might be a duplicated of this poppler bug:

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9443
Comment 4 Alexander Kojevnikov 2008-05-06 04:20:47 UTC 
I think this bug report is a duplicate of bug 504913.
Comment 5 Maciej (Matthew) Piechotka 2008-05-06 10:10:59 UTC 
Possibly. However judging on the number/date posted it's reverse - bug 504913 is duplicate of this bug ;)
Comment 6 Alexander Kojevnikov 2008-05-06 11:28:47 UTC 
(In reply to comment #5)
> Possibly. However judging on the number/date posted it's reverse - bug 504913
> is duplicate of this bug ;)
> 

Technically yes, but bug 504913 has a number of "advantages: compared to this one:

 * It has a patch.
 * A developer posted a comment in it telling that the fix is in trunk.
 * It's confirmed.
 * It has a higher priority and severity.
Comment 7 Maciej (Matthew) Piechotka 2008-05-06 11:33:18 UTC 
I know. Please note the ';)' on the end.
Comment 8 Alexander Kojevnikov 2008-05-06 11:39:39 UTC 
(In reply to comment #7)
> I know. Please note the ';)' on the end.
> 

Silly me :)

Could you mark this one as a duplicate then? I don't have editing permissions.

Dziekuje!
Comment 9 Maciej (Matthew) Piechotka 2008-05-06 14:39:11 UTC 
If you really want ;)

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 504913 ***