|
From: Christian P. <tr...@ge...> - 2005-08-12 08:08:46
|
On Friday 12 August 2005 09:51, Tom Hughes wrote:
> In message <200...@ge...>
[...]
> You've cleverly cut out all the useful/interesting information from
> that output...
Why I (repeatily) did so, is, because it's a rather bigbig backtrace and I
didn't wanna flood you with maybe not that interesting data as you might got
shocked of the bloated backtrace or so;
I attached the complete output (95% of them are VG so no flood et al I hope)
> > Well then, neither the backtrace nor the "Invalid read" told me
> > exactly at what location (memory address) this read error occured,
> > however in the end, I get the message above ("0x15959CE90 is not
> > stack'd, malloc'd or free'd")
>
> The invalid read should most certainly have told you where the read
> was occurring. In what way was it not clear.
Yeah, and - in my eyes - it makes no sense to SEGV there; welll, of course
anywhere in there is a bug, and I start think of having a problem in shared
pointers (template<class T> TSharedPtr) and traces / symbolnames often become
unreadable as the demangling algorithm doesn't demangle into the source-level
used typedef's - of course, I know why it can't - but anyways, it makes it
harder to read;
> > So, if I'm really right here, is there a way to get such a
> > observation feature into VG for 3.1?
>
> What exactly is it you want 'observed' exactly?
a message like "The memory accessed is within a dlopen()ed region already
released (dlclose()d)" right below the "invalid read" or alike;
> Remembering symbols after an unmap is hard - the problem is that a
> future dlopen could reuse the same addresses so it means storing
> temporal information of some sort with all the backtraces. This has
> been discussed in depth numerous times in the past.
Oh, really.. hmm... well then... I shouldn't better ask for the result of
then ;-)
Regards,
Christian Parpart.
--
09:57:50 up 141 days, 23:05, 0 users, load average: 3.94, 18.37, 11.91
|