RE: [Valgrind-users] not understanding some valgrind errors against afs...

[Neulinger, N. <nn...@um...>]

I think (from what I understand) that the problem is that if you lower
the threshold to something like 128K, valgrind will get confused if you
allocate a 128K+ object on the stack. If you're certain that no
individual object on the stack would be that size, it would probably be
useful to have an option to specify it.

-- Nathan

------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Neulinger                       EMail:  nn...@um...
University of Missouri - Rolla         Phone: (573) 341-4841
Computing Services                       Fax: (573) 341-4216


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yogesh Bhagwat [mailto:ybh...@ya...]=20
> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 12:28 PM
> To: Neulinger, Nathan
> Cc: val...@li...
> Subject: RE: [Valgrind-users] not understanding some valgrind=20
> errors against afs...
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --- "Neulinger, Nathan" <nn...@um...> wrote:
> > Sorry, AFS_LWP_STACK_SIZE... it's specific to the afs lwp code to
> > change
> > the stack size that it uses internally. I raised it to larger than
> > 1MB,
> > which passes the threshold for memcheck stack switch code.
> >=20
> Ah! OK, I tried a similar option for testbuilder=20
> (tbvThreadT::setStackSize()) and indeed it made valgrind=20
> very very quite. Thanx a lot for the tip.
>=20
> As a side note, it will be great it valgrind had an option to
> set the stack size being used by the application, so that if
> user knows the stacksize (128K default in case of testbuilder)
> she can use the option to inform valgrind.
>=20
> Is there a formal mechanism to submit a feature request?
>=20
> Regards,
> --
> Yogesh
>=20
>=20
>=20
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo
> http://search.yahoo.com
>=20