|
From: Maurice v. d. P. <gri...@ge...> - 2005-08-11 19:51:39
|
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 01:52:46AM +0100, Julian Seward wrote: > John Reiser has an audited (cleaned-up) version of glibc-2.3.5; the > comments at http://bitwagon.com/glibc-audit/glibc-audit.html make > interesting reading. I think it's a great shame that the glibc folks > don't make glibc Valgrind-clean given the almost unmeasurably small > performance overhead John says this would have (and I believe it); > this seems to me a poor tradeoff. I started looking at the patches and while reading the open3.patch I=20 wondered why that one would help. It fills in 0 for the optional third parameter to open calls. Both man=20 and info tell me the third parameter is only used when a file is being=20 created. Of the 50 or so changes, only 2 of them use O_CREAT. Is the problem here that it results in a syscall and a suppression=20 cannot work selectively based on the value of other parameters? Then I looked at the uninit patch, but I quickly got lost in the glibc source code.=20 What I still don't understand though is that these patches should help in getting rid of genuine problems reported by valgrind, while the reason for rejecting (some of) the patches is that nothing is done at run-time that is not absolutely necessary. It seems to me like both=20 parties are giving valid reasons for doing or not doing something, but they're not talking about the same thing. Either it's a genuine problem, valgrind should report it and glibc should spare no cycles to avoid it or it is not, valgrind should be quiet and glibc doesn't need to change. Regards, Maurice. --=20 Maurice van der Pot Gentoo Linux Developer gri...@ge... http://www.gentoo.org Creator of BiteMe! gri...@kf... http://www.kfk4ever.com |