Re: [Valgrind-users] FD leakage

[Robert W. <rj...@du...>]

> Why not look at the code and figure out what it is doing?   It might
> become confusing or the results might be inconclusive, but there is
> a large difference between "cannot understand this particular case"
> and "will not even try."

<snip>

> The first thing that could be done is count the number of architected
> opcodes (including prefixes) that remain unimplemented.  Put that number
> in the user-level documentation, put the specific list and classification
> of the missing cases and a suggested order of implementation in the devel=
oper
> documentation, and _then_ ask for volunteers.  Advertising the specifics
> is much more likely to create interest than a vague "there are some
> unimplemented opcodes."

John, I invite you to knock yourself out and take on these tasks if you
feel so strongly about them.  Most of the Valgrind developers are
working long hours on non-Valgrind jobs and simply don't have the time
or energy to do this.  As Tom suggested, you get out what you put in.=20
This wasn't a slight, simply a statement of fact: if you want something
done then you have the option of doing it yourself or waiting probably a
long time for someone else to find the time to do it.

> I put in test cases, I get out bugs -- enough to demonstrate that memchec=
k
> has a ways to go before I should rely on it to check non-test code.

I'd love to see these.  Do you have a pointer to them?

Regards,
 Robert.

--=20
Robert Walsh
Amalgamated Durables, Inc.  -  "We don't make the things you buy."
Email: rj...@du...