[Insight-developers] New valgrind defect in itkBSplineSyNImageRegistrationTest

[Nicholas Tustison]

Hi Brad,

I checked today to see if the patch was successful in removing 
the valgrind errors but from the line numbers mentioned in the
errors, it would seem that perhaps the valgrind machine hasn't 
updated since before I pushed the patch on Monday.  I thought 
the builds get updated code every night.  Is this not necessarily
the case?

Thanks,
Nick


On Mar 26, 2012, at 10:50 AM, Nicholas Tustison wrote:

> My guess is that this patch will probably fix the current
> three valgrind errors.
> 
> http://review.source.kitware.com/#/c/4833/
> 
> Basically I initialized the size of the metric derivative
> outside the call of the metric.
> 
> Nick
> 
> 
> On Mar 26, 2012, at 10:17 AM, Nicholas Tustison wrote:
> 
>> Hi Michael and Brian,
>> 
>> If you take a look at the valgrind error that Brad linked
>> to, it's basically the same as the two other registration
>> method valgrind errors where we perform optimization 
>> within the method class itself because they have to be 
>> handled individually.  What's interesting is that the only 
>> other similar class where we don't get a valgrind error is
>> the itkTimeVaryingBSplineVelocityFieldImageRegistrationMethod
>> class but I just looked and there was a bug in which we
>> were calling the metric GetValueAndDerivative() function
>> twice.  I fixed that here
>> 
>> http://review.source.kitware.com/#/c/4823/
>> 
>> but I bet you that by fixing it we'll add another valgrind 
>> error.  
>> 
>> What I can't figure out is why.  For standard registration
>> in which we're using the base class, 
>> ImageToImageRegistrationMethod, the optimizer calls
>> the GetValueAndDerivative() function and there's no
>> valgrind error.  What I'm wondering if is if the valgrind 
>> checking sees the repeated resizing of the metric 
>> derivative as a problem.
>> 
>> Nick
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mar 26, 2012, at 9:20 AM, Bradley Lowekamp wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello,
>>> 
>>> I was just closely looking at the dashboard, and noticed that the valgrind number of defect increased to 3. This one looks like the new one.
>>> 
>>> http://open.cdash.org/viewDynamicAnalysisFile.php?id=2726550
>>> 
>>> 
>>> If there other two defects are not going to be addressed and they are considered false positives, they really should be suppressed, so that new defects can more easily be seen.
>>> 
>>> Brad
>>> 
>>> ========================================================
>>> Bradley Lowekamp  
>>> Medical Science and Computing for
>>> Office of High Performance Computing and Communications
>>> National Library of Medicine 
>>> blowekamp at mail.nih.gov
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Powered by www.kitware.com
>>> 
>>> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
>>> http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
>>> 
>>> Kitware offers ITK Training Courses, for more information visit:
>>> http://kitware.com/products/protraining.php
>>> 
>>> Please keep messages on-topic and check the ITK FAQ at:
>>> http://www.itk.org/Wiki/ITK_FAQ
>>> 
>>> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
>>> http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-developers
>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.itk.org/pipermail/insight-developers/attachments/20120328/c7a719cb/attachment.htm>