You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2002 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
|
Apr
|
May
|
Jun
|
Jul
|
Aug
|
Sep
(1) |
Oct
(122) |
Nov
(152) |
Dec
(69) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003 |
Jan
(6) |
Feb
(25) |
Mar
(73) |
Apr
(82) |
May
(24) |
Jun
(25) |
Jul
(10) |
Aug
(11) |
Sep
(10) |
Oct
(54) |
Nov
(203) |
Dec
(182) |
| 2004 |
Jan
(307) |
Feb
(305) |
Mar
(430) |
Apr
(312) |
May
(187) |
Jun
(342) |
Jul
(487) |
Aug
(637) |
Sep
(336) |
Oct
(373) |
Nov
(441) |
Dec
(210) |
| 2005 |
Jan
(385) |
Feb
(480) |
Mar
(636) |
Apr
(544) |
May
(679) |
Jun
(625) |
Jul
(810) |
Aug
(838) |
Sep
(634) |
Oct
(521) |
Nov
(965) |
Dec
(543) |
| 2006 |
Jan
(494) |
Feb
(431) |
Mar
(546) |
Apr
(411) |
May
(406) |
Jun
(322) |
Jul
(256) |
Aug
(401) |
Sep
(345) |
Oct
(542) |
Nov
(308) |
Dec
(481) |
| 2007 |
Jan
(427) |
Feb
(326) |
Mar
(367) |
Apr
(255) |
May
(244) |
Jun
(204) |
Jul
(223) |
Aug
(231) |
Sep
(354) |
Oct
(374) |
Nov
(497) |
Dec
(362) |
| 2008 |
Jan
(322) |
Feb
(482) |
Mar
(658) |
Apr
(422) |
May
(476) |
Jun
(396) |
Jul
(455) |
Aug
(267) |
Sep
(280) |
Oct
(253) |
Nov
(232) |
Dec
(304) |
| 2009 |
Jan
(486) |
Feb
(470) |
Mar
(458) |
Apr
(423) |
May
(696) |
Jun
(461) |
Jul
(551) |
Aug
(575) |
Sep
(134) |
Oct
(110) |
Nov
(157) |
Dec
(102) |
| 2010 |
Jan
(226) |
Feb
(86) |
Mar
(147) |
Apr
(117) |
May
(107) |
Jun
(203) |
Jul
(193) |
Aug
(238) |
Sep
(300) |
Oct
(246) |
Nov
(23) |
Dec
(75) |
| 2011 |
Jan
(133) |
Feb
(195) |
Mar
(315) |
Apr
(200) |
May
(267) |
Jun
(293) |
Jul
(353) |
Aug
(237) |
Sep
(278) |
Oct
(611) |
Nov
(274) |
Dec
(260) |
| 2012 |
Jan
(303) |
Feb
(391) |
Mar
(417) |
Apr
(441) |
May
(488) |
Jun
(655) |
Jul
(590) |
Aug
(610) |
Sep
(526) |
Oct
(478) |
Nov
(359) |
Dec
(372) |
| 2013 |
Jan
(467) |
Feb
(226) |
Mar
(391) |
Apr
(281) |
May
(299) |
Jun
(252) |
Jul
(311) |
Aug
(352) |
Sep
(481) |
Oct
(571) |
Nov
(222) |
Dec
(231) |
| 2014 |
Jan
(185) |
Feb
(329) |
Mar
(245) |
Apr
(238) |
May
(281) |
Jun
(399) |
Jul
(382) |
Aug
(500) |
Sep
(579) |
Oct
(435) |
Nov
(487) |
Dec
(256) |
| 2015 |
Jan
(338) |
Feb
(357) |
Mar
(330) |
Apr
(294) |
May
(191) |
Jun
(108) |
Jul
(142) |
Aug
(261) |
Sep
(190) |
Oct
(54) |
Nov
(83) |
Dec
(22) |
| 2016 |
Jan
(49) |
Feb
(89) |
Mar
(33) |
Apr
(50) |
May
(27) |
Jun
(34) |
Jul
(53) |
Aug
(53) |
Sep
(98) |
Oct
(206) |
Nov
(93) |
Dec
(53) |
| 2017 |
Jan
(65) |
Feb
(82) |
Mar
(102) |
Apr
(86) |
May
(187) |
Jun
(67) |
Jul
(23) |
Aug
(93) |
Sep
(65) |
Oct
(45) |
Nov
(35) |
Dec
(17) |
| 2018 |
Jan
(26) |
Feb
(35) |
Mar
(38) |
Apr
(32) |
May
(8) |
Jun
(43) |
Jul
(27) |
Aug
(30) |
Sep
(43) |
Oct
(42) |
Nov
(38) |
Dec
(67) |
| 2019 |
Jan
(32) |
Feb
(37) |
Mar
(53) |
Apr
(64) |
May
(49) |
Jun
(18) |
Jul
(14) |
Aug
(53) |
Sep
(25) |
Oct
(30) |
Nov
(49) |
Dec
(31) |
| 2020 |
Jan
(87) |
Feb
(45) |
Mar
(37) |
Apr
(51) |
May
(99) |
Jun
(36) |
Jul
(11) |
Aug
(14) |
Sep
(20) |
Oct
(24) |
Nov
(40) |
Dec
(23) |
| 2021 |
Jan
(14) |
Feb
(53) |
Mar
(85) |
Apr
(15) |
May
(19) |
Jun
(3) |
Jul
(14) |
Aug
(1) |
Sep
(57) |
Oct
(73) |
Nov
(56) |
Dec
(22) |
| 2022 |
Jan
(3) |
Feb
(22) |
Mar
(6) |
Apr
(55) |
May
(46) |
Jun
(39) |
Jul
(15) |
Aug
(9) |
Sep
(11) |
Oct
(34) |
Nov
(20) |
Dec
(36) |
| 2023 |
Jan
(79) |
Feb
(41) |
Mar
(99) |
Apr
(169) |
May
(48) |
Jun
(16) |
Jul
(16) |
Aug
(57) |
Sep
(19) |
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
1
(1) |
2
(8) |
3
(7) |
4
(16) |
5
|
|
6
(3) |
7
(4) |
8
(1) |
9
(1) |
10
(4) |
11
(5) |
12
(1) |
|
13
|
14
(4) |
15
(2) |
16
|
17
(2) |
18
(9) |
19
(5) |
|
20
(9) |
21
(7) |
22
(9) |
23
(5) |
24
|
25
(1) |
26
|
|
27
|
28
(1) |
29
(11) |
30
(6) |
31
|
|
|
|
From: H. J. L. <hj...@lu...> - 2002-10-19 06:02:04
|
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 06:50:02PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > On Fri, 2002-10-18 at 17:52, H. J. Lu wrote: > > > OK, but valgrind.so is already being linked with "-z initfirst"; what > > > happens if there are two .so files with initfirst? (It does seem to > > > work). > > > > Which ever comes first wins > > So if the order of events is: > > 1. run executable A, with LD_PRELOAD=valgrind.so (which has initfirst > set) > 2. A uses function foo() which is defined in libc.so > 3. A doesn't use libpthread, but after a while it dlopens libB.so, which > does > 4. libB.so pulls in Valgrind's libpthread.so. > 5. Valgrind's libpthread.so wants to override foo(), now that this has > become a multithreaded program. If A uses foo() again, which definition > will it get? libc's original one (which it was using before), or the > new definition in libpthread.so? > I think A will always use the original foo. BTW, if libB.so is dlopened, it becomes very tricky. See http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2002-05/msg00214.html H.J. |
|
From: Jeremy F. <je...@go...> - 2002-10-19 01:50:01
|
On Fri, 2002-10-18 at 17:52, H. J. Lu wrote: > > OK, but valgrind.so is already being linked with "-z initfirst"; what > > happens if there are two .so files with initfirst? (It does seem to > > work). > > Which ever comes first wins So if the order of events is: 1. run executable A, with LD_PRELOAD=valgrind.so (which has initfirst set) 2. A uses function foo() which is defined in libc.so 3. A doesn't use libpthread, but after a while it dlopens libB.so, which does 4. libB.so pulls in Valgrind's libpthread.so. 5. Valgrind's libpthread.so wants to override foo(), now that this has become a multithreaded program. If A uses foo() again, which definition will it get? libc's original one (which it was using before), or the new definition in libpthread.so? I wonder if the solution is to always pull in Valgrind's libpthread.so, but only make it do special stuff once there's more than one thread... Thanks, J |
|
From: Jeremy F. <je...@go...> - 2002-10-19 00:56:19
|
New patches for today, fresh from http://www.goop.org/~jeremy/valgrind/: 14-hg-tid HELGRIND: This fixes a bug in Helgrind in which all memory access by syscalls was being treated as if it were happening in thread 1. This is because the eraser_mem_read/write functions were using get_current_tid_1_if_root() to get the current tid. Unfortunately, during syscalls there is no current thread, so it was getting 1_if_root. This patch fixes this by using what thread ID information we're given, and only using get_current_tid() if we're recording a memory access performed by code (rather than by a syscall). 15-hg-datasym HELGRIND: In conjuction with patch 13-data-syms, print symbolic information for addresses in error messages (if possible). 16-ld-nodelete Add -Wl,-z,nodelete,-z,initfirst to link line for libpthread.so, because HJ says so. Also add soname. J |
|
From: H. J. L. <hj...@lu...> - 2002-10-19 00:52:39
|
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 05:26:21PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > On Fri, 2002-10-18 at 16:58, H. J. Lu wrote: > > 1. There are supposed to be no differences between weak and strong > > symbols in DSOs. I submitted a patch to glibc: > > > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2001-09/msg00109.html > > It looks from that thread that the patch wasn't applied to 2.2. Does > that mean it still needs to be applied, or has it been applied since. I > really don't understand the issues here; can or explain, or is there a I am pushing for it again. > reference? In particular, what's DT_FILTER? Is it a mechanism for > interposing symbols, or is it something else? > See http://docs.sun.com/db/doc/806-0641 As I understand and I could be wrong, there may be still some problems with DT_FILTER and DT_AUXILIARY in glibc. > > 2. Glibc will make sure libpthread.so will override libc.so, weak > > or strong. Please file a bug if it doesn't do so. But please make > > sure your libpthread has: > > > > # readelf -d /lib/libpthread.so.0 > > ... > > 0x6ffffffb (FLAGS_1) Flags: NODELETE INITFIRST > > ... > > > > by passing "-z nodelete -z initfirst" to ld. > > OK, but valgrind.so is already being linked with "-z initfirst"; what > happens if there are two .so files with initfirst? (It does seem to > work). Which ever comes first wins H.J. |
|
From: Jeremy F. <je...@go...> - 2002-10-19 00:26:20
|
On Fri, 2002-10-18 at 16:58, H. J. Lu wrote: > 1. There are supposed to be no differences between weak and strong > symbols in DSOs. I submitted a patch to glibc: > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2001-09/msg00109.html It looks from that thread that the patch wasn't applied to 2.2. Does that mean it still needs to be applied, or has it been applied since. I really don't understand the issues here; can or explain, or is there a reference? In particular, what's DT_FILTER? Is it a mechanism for interposing symbols, or is it something else? > 2. Glibc will make sure libpthread.so will override libc.so, weak > or strong. Please file a bug if it doesn't do so. But please make > sure your libpthread has: > > # readelf -d /lib/libpthread.so.0 > ... > 0x6ffffffb (FLAGS_1) Flags: NODELETE INITFIRST > ... > > by passing "-z nodelete -z initfirst" to ld. OK, but valgrind.so is already being linked with "-z initfirst"; what happens if there are two .so files with initfirst? (It does seem to work). Thanks, J |