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
|
|
3
|
4
|
5
(2) |
6
(3) |
7
|
8
(2) |
9
(3) |
|
10
(3) |
11
(5) |
12
(1) |
13
|
14
(21) |
15
(6) |
16
(4) |
|
17
(9) |
18
(13) |
19
(15) |
20
(15) |
21
(11) |
22
(16) |
23
(4) |
|
24
|
25
(8) |
26
(4) |
27
(3) |
28
(1) |
29
|
30
(2) |
|
From: James M. <Jam...@na...> - 2002-11-26 01:34:24
|
OK I shall clean it up and supply a patch for you. Stay tuned -----Original Message----- From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge [mailto:je...@go...] Sent: Tuesday, 26 November 2002 9:19 AM To: James Maynard Cc: Valgrind Developers Subject: RE: FW: valgrinds suppression of leak errors [ You should "reply to all" to this; Julian is really the person you = need to convice about this stuff, and posting to the developers list is = the best way of making sure the right people see the conversation. ] On Mon, 2002-11-25 at 16:35, James Maynard wrote:=20 [James Maynard]=20 I would supply a patch if I knew how how to put one together!=20 A patch is just the output of "diff -u oldfile newfile".=20 [James Maynard] =20 Writing the suppression file in mangled form is a pain in the but since = the leak trace is in demangled form. We either dump the trace in mangled = form and suppress in mangled form or dump in demangled form and suppress = in demangled form. any other combination seems clumsy.=20 I tend to agree with you.=20 [James Maynard] =20 The suppression code is a replication of similar code in your code base. = Urk.=20 I could have used dynamically allocated arrays and loops instead but I = was not sure if this was a problem seing as we are checking memory = allocation. Other places in the code do not use dynamic memory = allocation so I was unsure about the efficacy of using it.=20 It works, but I think it can get a little inefficient. Still, loops = over static arrays are better than the opencoded version.=20 J=20 ____ This communication contains information which is confidential and the = copyright of Nautronix.=20 If you are not the intended recipient of this communication please = delete and destroy all copies and advise Nautronix immediately. If you = are the intended recipient of this communication you should not copy, = disclose or distribute this communication without the prior authority of = Nautronix. Any views expressed in this Communication are those of the = individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to = be the views of Nautronix. Except as required at law, Nautronix does not represent, warrant and/or = guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained = nor that the communication is free of errors, virus, interception or = interference. |
|
From: Jeremy F. <je...@go...> - 2002-11-26 01:19:40
|
[ You should "reply to all" to this; Julian is really the person you
need to convice about this stuff, and posting to the developers list is
the best way of making sure the right people see the conversation. ]
On Mon, 2002-11-25 at 16:35, James Maynard wrote:
> [James Maynard]
> I would supply a patch if I knew how how to put one together!
A patch is just the output of "diff -u oldfile newfile".
> [James Maynard]
> Writing the suppression file in mangled form is a pain
> in the but since the leak trace is in demangled form.
> We either dump the trace in mangled form and suppress
> in mangled form or dump in demangled form and suppress
> in demangled form. any other combination seems clumsy.
I tend to agree with you.
> [James Maynard]
> The suppression code is a replication of similar code
> in your code base.
Urk.
> I could have used dynamically allocated arrays and
> loops instead but I was not sure if this was a problem
> seing as we are checking memory allocation. Other
> places in the code do not use dynamic memory
> allocation so I was unsure about the efficacy of using
> it.
It works, but I think it can get a little inefficient. Still, loops
over static arrays are better than the opencoded version.
J
|
|
From: Jeremy F. <je...@go...> - 2002-11-26 00:28:37
|
On Mon, 2002-11-25 at 15:57, Julian Seward wrote:
> > Which should be
> >
> > add %edx, %eax
> > adc %ecx, %ebx
> >
> > of course.
>
> Doesn't the mythical lazy-eflags-save/restore pass clean up this particular
> case?
Should do. Doesn't look that hard to implement either. I was vaguely
thinking of hanging a mechanism off VG_(new_emit), by adding "uses" and
"sets" flagset arguments to it, and have it manage flag saves and
restores. new_emit seemed like a nice place to hang it, since its
already being called in all the right places.
> Good icc handling is known to be difficult in dynamic translators. I think
> we can say we're running up against the limits of our local analysis. Most
> systems which do better (WABI, Daisy, surely others) translate groups of
> bbs at a time and track/optimise icc liveness across the whole group.
> Also, that would allow register allocation across the whole group. If I
> had another spare year and reimplemented the JIT from scratch I'd think about
> something like this. However, reality being what it is ...
Well, I think a longer term, but not completely impractical, approach is
the extended basic block idea. It gives us translation of multiple BBs
(including register allocation) more or less within our existing
infrastructure.
J
|