|
From: Jeremy F. <je...@go...> - 2005-01-17 09:08:36
|
On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 08:44 +0000, Tom Hughes wrote: > In message <1105931992.31917.42.camel@localhost> > Jeremy Fitzhardinge <je...@go...> wrote: > > > On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 03:10 +0000, Tom Hughes wrote: > >> memcheck/tests/pth_once (stderr) > > This is some warnings from pthread_create: > > + Syscall param write(buf) points to uninitialised byte(s) > + at 0x........: write (in /...libc...) > + by 0x........: pthread_create@@GLIBC_2.1 (in /lib/i686/libpthread-0.9.so) > + by 0x........: main (pth_once.c:65) > + Address 0x........ is on thread 1's stack > + Hm, this looks like it should match against the "LinuxThreads: write/pthread_create" suppression. > + Syscall param write(buf) points to uninitialised byte(s) > + at 0x........: write (in /...libc...) > + by 0x........: main (pth_once.c:65) > + Address 0x........ is on thread 1's stack > + > + Syscall param write(buf) points to uninitialised byte(s) > + at 0x........: write (in /...libc...) > + by 0x........: main (pth_once.c:76) > + Address 0x........ is on thread 1's stack > + > + Syscall param write(buf) points to uninitialised byte(s) > + at 0x........: write (in /...libc...) > + by 0x........: exit (in /...libc...) > + by 0x........: __libc_start_main (...libc...) > + by 0x........: ... > + Address 0x........ is on thread 1's stack These look a bit tricky to suppress. > >> memcheck/tests/scalar (stderr) > > This is asserting on the munlockall test: > > ----------------------------------------------------- > 153: __NR_munlockall 0s 0m > ----------------------------------------------------- > scalar: scalar.c:671: main: Assertion `-1 != res' failed. What's to fail? Or is the kernel missing munlockall altogether? > >> none/tests/yield (stdout) > > > > Can you think of any useful assertion this test could be making? > > Perhaps we should just kill it. > > Well what is it trying to test? Presumably the idea was to test that > the "rep; nop" sequence caused a yield properly. > > Perhaps it is sufficient to test that "rep; nop" makes progress but > less progress that spinning? Yeah, I guess that's all we can say. J |