Re: [Valgrind-users] FW: Helgrind to-do list

[Philippe W. <phi...@sk...>]

On Fri, 2013-09-27 at 15:01 +0000, Phil Longstaff wrote:
> I was thinking about this one last night, and it's trickier than I first thought.
> 
> L = lock, T = trylock
> Thread1: L1 L2
> Thread2: L2 T1
> 
> Not a deadlock because the trylock will just fail.  However, suppose we have:
> 
> Thread1: L1 L2
> Thread2: L2 T1
> 
> And then later:
> 
> Thread 3: L1 L2
> 
> When helgrind handles L2, it would already find the graph edge L1 -> L2 so wouldn't it just return 
> since that is the "correct order"?  David sent me some past e-mail and I saw some comments about 
> putting lock vs trylock into the graph.  Seems to me that when processing T2, helgrind would not 
> report a problem, but would add the T2 -> L1 link, and would also need to ensure that if L1 -> L2 
> happens in the future, it is reported.

Did not see much of the attached mails or discussions,
so I guess the reference to the discussions on valusers is:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.debugging.valgrind/12616

Philippe