Re: [Valgrind-users] which is the exactly jump ?

[Ivan S. <isj...@i1...>]

On Monday 26 December 2005 13:40, Yu Neil wrote:
> valgrind output:
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> ==17527== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)
> ==17527==    at 0x8074E6D: vfprintf (in /code_changed/core/ya)
> ==17527==    by 0x805CC92: vsprintf (in /code_changed/core/ya)
> ==17527==    by 0x805C98C: sprintf (in /code_changed/core/ya)
> ==17527==    by 0x805961F: found_the_pri (proce_exist.c:1677)
> ==17527==    by 0x805972A: check_is_pri_expandable (proce_exist.c:1720)
> ==17527==    by 0x8057C09: expand_sub (proce_exist.c:757)
> ==17527==    by 0x8056ED1: logic_expand (proce_exist.c:302)
> ==17527==    by 0x8056C2E: first_check (proce_exist.c:196)
> ==17527==    by 0x80567E8: proce_exist (proce_exist.c:45)
> ==17527==    by 0x804E183: execute (execute.c:9)
> ==17527==    by 0x8048C06: main (intact.c:230)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> It mentioned "jump" , but i don't know which is the exactly jump ? for it
> all traced my function call.

vfprintf() may have a conditional jump testing if eg. a supplied parameter is 
negative. If the supplied parameter came from uninitialized memory Valgrind 
will complain.

Eg:
  int x;  //uninitialized
  sprintf(...,"...%d...", x);
will make Valgrind complain inside sprintf (vfprintf in your case)

Look at your code in found_the_pri (proce_exist.c:1677) and verify that all 
parameters have defined values. One of them does dosen't.