Re: [Valgrind-developers] Re: valgrind/coregrind

[Dirk M. <dm...@gm...>]

On Sunday 25 January 2004 04:07, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:

> Well, exactly that.  We're so far from being like the underlying CPU,
> there's no point in pretending it is actually the underlying CPU. 

Well, I disagree. Besides timing, we're pretty much like the underlying CPU. I 
think its important that the application, no matter if I wrote it or not, and 
if I have the sources or not,runs just the very same code it would run 
without valgrind as well. Otherwise trying to debug failures becomes pretty 
much mood. 

> still emulates all the important parts of the CPUID instruction, and any
> program which correctly uses CPUID will be fine.  Programs which don't
> correctly use the CPUID instruction should be given the opportunity to
> fail so they can be fixed.

What do you gain by breaking code which you don't have the sources of (like 
for example the nvidia dri stuff) ?

> Also, it means you could use CPUID to implement RUNNING_ON_VALGRIND,
> which may be useful (for example, if you want to special-case something,
> without actually having a source dependency on valgrind/*.h).

Thats not a reason IMHO. RUNNING_ON_VALGRIND is a 5 line #define, which you 
can just copy&paste into your sources instead of including something from 
valgrind/*h. 

I'm not sure how the others feel, but given that there was absolutely NO 
discussion about this patch I'm surprised that it was just committed.