|
From: Yeshurun, M. <mei...@in...> - 2005-10-18 10:14:20
|
Thanks! :)
-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Seward [mailto:js...@ac...]=20
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 12:06 PM
To: Yeshurun, Meir
Subject: Re: [Valgrind-users] User error? - Valgrind 3 failing terribly
compared to purify
Try this. In mc_main.c find mc_LOADVn_slow() and in particular
this:
if (n_addrs_bad > 0)
MAC_(record_address_error)( VG_(get_running_tid)(), a, szB, False
);
change it to
if (n_addrs_bad =3D=3D szB)
MAC_(record_address_error)( VG_(get_running_tid)(), a, szB, False
);
This effectively reinstates the partial-loads-ok hack.
J
On Tuesday 18 October 2005 01:29, you wrote:
> That's the only requirement I can't satisfy :). The libraries I'm
> talking about are from external vendors.
>
> Meir
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julian Seward [mailto:js...@ac...]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 2:25 AM
> To: Yeshurun, Meir
> Cc: val...@li...
> Subject: Re: [Valgrind-users] User error? - Valgrind 3 failing
terribly
> compared to purify
>
> > At least in some of the cases, it looks indeed like a fast memcpy
>
> since
>
> > the top-most function in the stack trace is named my_strdup. So I
>
> guess
>
> > the only option is to add a suppression, right?
>
> Can you rewrite my_strdup so it doesn't fall off the end of arrays?
> You should be able to do that without a loss of performance using
> standard loop vectorisation techniques. The only requirement is
> access to the source.
>
> J
|