|
From: Vincent Penquerc'h <Vin...@ar...> - 2003-08-05 10:02:45
|
> Till now I'am only disappointed by one point about valgrind, > and that is the > lack of monitoring of local memory within function call. > Especially detects > it no under or over runs for arrays. Yes, that could be fixed by adding non addressable "padding" bytes before and after an array, I guess. Though I'm not sure if Valgrind could detect the creation of such an array from the instructions though. And it would definitely not be able to do so if there are more than one arrays that are merged together in their creation (which is just a manipulation of the stack pointer). For this kind of things, I believe there exist some patches to GCC to detect stack smashing (extra code being emitted to check for the return address to be left unchanged between a function being entered and it being left). I can't be more specific now, I've never actually had a look, just heard of it. Google may help on this one. -- Vincent Penquerc'h |