Why does inspector complain about virtually every single COM related function call?
I've got some 50 or so entries claiming:
CoInitialize - Invalid memory access.
CoUnitialize - Invalid Memory access.
I've got hundreds complaining about Uninitialized partial memory access or invalid memory access:
Calls to ADO generate a good 200 entries for MSWSOCK.dll, MSDART.dll, OLEAUT32.dll, iclit09b.dll, MSVCR80.dll, ole32.dll, RPCRT4.dll
All of the entires that complain about any module that I actually have source for point somewhere down into assembly where something COM related is happening.
My project obviously leaks, because if I iterate over it a number of times great enough, I can sit and watch process explorer climb and climb until it crashes due to running out of memory. Yet, nothing points to anything in my source.
What is the official word? Can we not use this product with ATL/COM code? Are there some special instructions somewhere for finding leaks in projects involving ATL/COM? How can I go about testing my code for leaks when ATL/COM is such a large part of the system?
Going through and checking every single one of 500+ entries, digging through their call stacks, and making test cases to isolate them on the chance that there is some problem with MS code, is just not reasonable. Suppressing them is not reasonable either. There are just too many, and in order to surpress them we'd have to do the former to truly rule them out.