[Valgrind-developers] Re: CVS: valgrind/addrcheck ac_main.c,1.19,1.20

[Julian S. <js...@ac...>]

Yes, I dithered for a while about whether to have it as a need or a 
detail (and I remember you said a need would be better, a while 
back :)   Then I was a bit worried about skins which don't specify
the size and get excessive TC flushing as a result, if the avg size
turns out to be more than the default.  Hence made it mandatory.

But perhaps it isn't a big deal.  I can see you'd be happier if
I made it into a need, so I'll try and do that at the weekend.

-------------

Josef W mailed [yesterday?] about a problem in the granularity of the 
code addr -> sourceloc mapping (I'm not claiming to understand it),
possibly to do with some of Jeremy's symtab stuff, or possibly not.
Any chance you could have a look at this before you disappear, if you 
have the time?  If not, don't worry.

I'd sort-of intended to ship 2.0 over xmas, but I don't think this
is a good idea with you off-line for so long.  I think a wiser idea
is for me to assemble 2.0 as best I can, then emit 2.0pre1, pre2,
etc, as I did for the 1.0 series, to stabilise it all.  Then if there
are outstanding problems with the framework or the cache profiler,
you can look at them mid-late-Jan on your return, and we'll be in a
good position to ship 2.0 final.

How does that sound?

J

----------------------------------------------------------------

On Tuesday 03 December 2002 12:03 pm, you wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Nov 2002, Julian Seward wrote:
> > Complete integration of the new code management (sectored FIFO) story.
> >
> > This commit adds stats gathering / printing (use -v -v), and selection
> > of sector size decided by asking skins, via
> > VG_(details).avg_translation_sizeB, the average size of their
> > translations.
> >
> > +    VG_(details_avg_translation_sizeB) ( 106 );
>
> I wonder if this might be done better as a 'need' rather than a 'detail'
> -- ie. make it optional for the skin to set it.  Most of the needs are
> bools, yes, but not all (sizeof_shadow_chunk isn't).  I think it might be
> nicer for a skin writer to be able to ignore this at first.  What do you
> think?
>
> N