-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 182
FIX: Fix table destructor not being called #2540
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
FIX: Fix table destructor not being called #2540
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm going to adapt this PR into #2364 and see if it helps some of the memory leak fails. Because this affects return values regardless of the inputs, I think it might also address this sporadic k-Means failure. Just a small change but otherwise I expect its basically good to go.
Co-authored-by: Ian Faust <icfaust@gmail.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Unfortunately didn't solve the issues in #2364 . Looks good to go (just verify with a private CI run before merge).
/intelci: run |
/intelci: run |
/intelci: run |
1 similar comment
/intelci: run |
@david-cortes-intel please merge in main and re-run private CI |
f4d73ae
to
51ac59c
Compare
/intelci: run |
Description
ref #1869
This PR fixes an issue with the destructor for table objects not being called when the python objects are deallocated.
The fix needs to be tested more thoroughly through sanitizers and valgrind when possible.
PR should start as a draft, then move to ready for review state after CI is passed and all applicable checkboxes are closed.
This approach ensures that reviewers don't spend extra time asking for regular requirements.
You can remove a checkbox as not applicable only if it doesn't relate to this PR in any way.
For example, PR with docs update doesn't require checkboxes for performance while PR with any change in actual code should have checkboxes and justify how this code change is expected to affect performance (or justification should be self-evident).
Checklist to comply with before moving PR from draft:
PR completeness and readability
Testing