Re: [Valgrind-users] expected results for regtest

[Mark W. <mj...@re...>]

On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 09:38:03AM +0200, Ivo Raisr wrote:
> 2016-04-15 2:56 GMT+02:00 John Reiser <jr...@bi...>:
> > ===== massif/tests/new-cpp.post.diff   (post)
> > -  1          4,008            4,008            4,000             8
> >     0
> > -  2          8,016            8,016            8,000            16
> >     0
> > -  3         10,024           10,024           10,000            24
> >     0
> > -  4         12,032           12,032           12,000            32
> >     0
> > -  5         12,032           12,032           12,000            32
> >     0
> > -99.73% (12,000B) (heap allocation functions) malloc/new/new[],
> > --alloc-fns, etc.
> > -->33.24% (4,000B) 0x........: main (new-cpp.cpp:19)
> > +  1         72,712           72,712           72,704             8
> >     0
> > +  2         76,720           76,720           76,704            16
> >     0
> > +  3         80,728           80,728           80,704            24
> >     0
> > +  4         82,736           82,736           82,704            32
> >     0
> > +  5         84,744           84,744           84,704            40
> >     0
> > +  6         84,744           84,744           84,704            40
> >     0
> > +99.95% (84,704B) (heap allocation functions) malloc/new/new[],
> > --alloc-fns, etc.
> > +->85.79% (72,704B) 0x........: ??? (in /usr/lib64/libstdc++.so.6.0.21)
> > +| ->85.79% (72,704B) 0x........: call_init.part.0 (dl-init.c:72)
> > +|   ->85.79% (72,704B) 0x........: _dl_init (dl-init.c:30)
> > +|     ->85.79% (72,704B) 0x........: ??? (in /usr/lib64/ld-2.21.so)
> > +|
> > +->04.72% (4,000B) 0x........: main (new-cpp.cpp:19)
> >
> > I believe that this change in output from massif has the same underlying
> > cause
> > as the change above in the output from memcheck.
> >
> 
> Agreed. I tried to fix this in bug 345307 ignoring allocations
> done by _GLOBAL__sub_I_eh_alloc.cc. This worked for Linux/Ubuntu 15.10
> and Solaris 12. Apparently on this distribution, things are a bit different
> so another
> function needs to be ignored. A little investigation should show what needs
> to be done here.

The issue I believe is that unless we have the full symtab (from the
separate libstdc++-debuginfo package) we don't know the name of the
function. For memcheck the following suppression seems to work, with
a variant that is stripped and one with full symtab debug symbols:

{
   malloc-leaks-cxx-stl-string-classes
   Memcheck:Leak
   match-leak-kinds: reachable
   fun:malloc
   obj:*/*lib*/libstdc++.so*
   fun:call_init.part.0
   fun:call_init
   fun:_dl_init
   obj:/usr/*lib*/ld-2.*.so
}

{
  malloc-leaks-cxx-stl-string-classes-debug
  Memcheck:Leak
  match-leak-kinds: reachable
  fun:malloc
  fun:pool
  fun:__static_initialization_and_destruction_0
  fun:_GLOBAL__sub_I_eh_alloc.cc
  fun:call_init.part.0
  fun:call_init
  fun:_dl_init
  obj:/usr/*lib*/ld-2.*.so
}

I don't know how to do a similar dual suppression using the massif
--ignore-fn option.

Cheers,

Mark