|
From: Madhu M K. <mm...@ya...> - 2005-08-20 16:17:14
|
Folks, To reiterate what other users have been saying, valgrind since the early yyyymmdd.tar.bz2 releases has been a tremendous resource for me. When I have come across issues, they have either been fixed soon or since I had access to code, I was able to develop functionality for them (re: automatic generation of suppressions into a file). I am very grateful to all of you for your time and effort. > While we certainly appreciate advanced users who push Valgrind to the > limit, like everyone else we have limited development resources and > so we have to concentrate on making Valgrind work well for the 99% > of the user base who are not "pushing the envelope". Sometimes that > means that bugs get fixed in a different order than one might like. While some of the email on this thread has been pretty inflammatory and one is tempted to talk about expectations from open source, the $$ one pays for using valgrind, the presumption involved in "fundamental" operations and silly ad hominem comments about school, but I digress. I'd like to bring to the discussion this article: http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html "Completeness-the design must cover as many important situations as is practical. All reasonably expected cases should be covered. Completeness can be sacrificed in favor of any other quality. In fact, completeness must sacrificed whenever implementation simplicity is jeopardized. Consistency can be sacrificed to achieve completeness if simplicity is retained; especially worthless is consistency of interface." Cheerio, M Madhu M Kurup /* Nemo Me Impune Lacessit */ mmk at yahoo-inc dt com |