|
From: Nicholas N. <nj...@cs...> - 2007-02-21 04:36:18
|
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Julian Seward wrote: >> I currently see two main problems faced by Valgrind users: >> >> (1) unimplemented opcodes on AMD64; >> (2) debug info problems. >> >> (1) is slowly improving, although the current strategy is usually "wait for >> a complaint, then uncomment the code that already handles it". It would be >> nice to be more proactive for the cases where we already have code to >> handle it. > > Yes. I think 3.2.3 is much better than previous versions in that > respect. AFAICS we handle all insns produced by gcc and icc; the > recent failures (http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=141790) were > generated by a compiler of hardware descriptions. My implement-on- > demand strategy is motivated by not wanting to implement opcodes > without at least some sort of test case; tracking down incorrectly > implemented, rarely used opcodes after the fact is really no fun. > (I had to do that for x86 'fsincos', for example). Yep, by "proactive" I meant "writing our own test cases", eg. by augmenting Tom's insn_* tests, rather than waiting for a report. But it's easy for me to say this, and I know I won't be doing it myself, so I'll leave it at that :) Nick |