Re: [Valgrind-users] openoffice and valgrind1.9.6 - strange problems. Using rh8

[Dan K. <da...@ke...>]

Julian Seward (jseward at acm.org) wrote:
> Hi.  First off, I think OpenOffice is an important project
> and am pleased to hear someone is valgrinding it.  OO is my
> biggest, most hairy test case.  If it's possible, I'd like to
> help the OOo developers be in the position where they routinely
> valgrindify OOo, in the same way that the KDE and Gnome folks 
> use it routinely.

Excellent!  I'm hoping to use it quickly in the next few
days to help make OpenOffice 1.1 beta more solid.  I don't
know if the openoffice developers are using it yet; I'm
just a gadfly who got a bee in his bonnet about a backlog
of untriaged bugs in the openoffice bug tracking system, and
jumped in to help sort through them and mark the interesting
ones for the developers to work on.

> I don't a RH8 box to repro this on.  But I have just tried
> gdb attach/detach on SuSE 8.2 on the OOo 1.0.2 they supply,
> and that works fine using the valgrind cvs head.  I did it a
> bit different from you, perhaps:
> 
>    LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/opt/OpenOffice.org/program    \
>    ./Inst/bin/valgrind -v -v --skin=addrcheck     \
>    --gdb-attach=yes  /opt/OpenOffice.org/program/soffice.bin
> 
> I did all that directly on the command line, no shell script
> or anything.  Perhaps your shell script ./soffice-valgrind.sh
> is causing a problem?  Can you try something equivalent to the
> above?

Thanks for that nice short line.  (I had been clumsily editing
the soffice script without bothering to understand it.)  However,
I get the same results with that as with my script.
Also, your errno patch didn't have any impact on the
strange problem I had running valgrind 1.9.6 on Red Hat 8,
just as you expected.
The good news is, I verified that valgrind 1.9.6 on Red Hat 7.2
does run openoffice1.1beta just fine.
I believe I'm unstuck now, and will continue with OO on valgrind
next chance I get.

> The following is a question re OO on V.  With the help of Michael
> Meeks at Ximian, I did manage to build from source various cvs
> branches of OO (cws_srx644_ooo11beta, in the end) and valgrinded
> them.  What I noticed was that (1) the number of mallocs/frees
> reported by V was surprisingly low, compared with 1.0.2, 
> and (2) all the buffer-overrun errors had disappeared.  And so
> I wondered if OO had moved to using some kind of internal
> allocator which V cannot 'see' ?  Alternatively of course all
> those bugs have been fixed.

No idea - but I'll pass the question on to de...@op....
- Dan


-- 
Dan Kegel
http://www.kegel.com
http://counter.li.org/cgi-bin/runscript/display-person.cgi?user=78045