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

[Nicholas N. <nj...@ca...>]

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Dirk Mueller 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.

"ValgrindVCPU" seems ok to me, for two reasons:

1. Theoretical:  The difference between Valgrind's VCPU and the underlying
one are greater than just timing.  For example, my Athlon supports 3dNow!
instructions, Valgrind doesn't.

2. Practical: It's hard to imagine anyone actually using the vendor string
ID in a real program;  or certainly not in a way that changes any code
paths taken.

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

I don't understand -- what code is being broken?

N