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
(13) |
2
(16) |
3
(10) |
4
(5) |
5
(1) |
6
|
|
7
(4) |
8
(3) |
9
(1) |
10
(1) |
11
(1) |
12
(3) |
13
(2) |
|
14
(8) |
15
(4) |
16
(17) |
17
(6) |
18
(20) |
19
(12) |
20
(1) |
|
21
(3) |
22
(17) |
23
(10) |
24
(9) |
25
|
26
|
27
(4) |
|
28
(4) |
29
(2) |
30
|
31
(5) |
|
|
|
|
From: Robert S. <rsc...@un...> - 2003-12-01 13:35:10
|
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 12:58:08PM +0000, Nick Nethercote wrote: > Hi, >=20 > Is there any difference between RESOLVED, VERIFIED and CLOSED in Bugzilla? > bugs.kde.org/bug_status.html doesn't show any difference. For the developer fixing the bug there is not much difference between these states. You can use these states for quality management: The developer that fixes the bug sets it to RESOLVED. Someone else has to check then whether t= he fix works and is appropriate to fix the problem. =3D=3D> VERIFIED Finally w= hen the fix sneaked into a released product, the bug is no longer an issue. =3D=3D>= CLOSED But the meaning of these states have to be clearly defined for a project to= be of real use. Robert --=20 Robert Schiele Tel.: +49-621-181-2517 Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:rsc...@un... |
|
From: Nicholas N. <nj...@ca...> - 2003-12-01 13:12:17
|
CVS commit by nethercote:
Fix broken assertion, thanks to Tom Hughes.
M +3 -3 hg_main.c 1.68
--- valgrind/helgrind/hg_main.c #1.67:1.68
@@ -2766,7 +2766,7 @@ Bool SK_(read_extra_suppression_info) (
Bool SK_(error_matches_suppression)(Error* err, Supp* su)
{
- sk_assert(VG_(get_supp_kind) (su) == EraserSupp);
- sk_assert(VG_(get_error_kind)(err) == EraserErr);
- return True;
+ sk_assert(VG_(get_supp_kind)(su) == EraserSupp);
+
+ return (VG_(get_error_kind)(err) == EraserErr);
}
|
|
From: Nicholas N. <nj...@ca...> - 2003-12-01 13:11:46
|
CVS commit by nethercote:
Fix broken assertion, thanks to Tom Hughes.
M +2 -2 hg_main.c 1.60.2.3
--- valgrind/helgrind/hg_main.c #1.60.2.2:1.60.2.3
@@ -2749,6 +2749,6 @@ Bool SK_(error_matches_suppression)(Erro
{
sk_assert(VG_(get_supp_kind) (su) == EraserSupp);
- sk_assert(VG_(get_error_kind)(err) == EraserErr);
- return True;
+
+ return (VG_(get_error_kind)(err) == EraserErr);
}
|
|
From: Nicholas N. <nj...@ca...> - 2003-12-01 13:03:43
|
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003, KJK::Hyperion wrote: > >I imagine it would be much easier to port to a *nix OS than to Windows. > > hm, I don't know. How does Valgrind's memory checking work? does it keep a > cache of the memory status somewhere? and the real memory of the process is > kept in synch with the emulated memory? Real memory is shadowed by shadow memory, which records accessibility for every byte, and validity for every bit. Some other tools (Valgrind is a suite of tools, the memory checker is only one) have similar shadow memory, some don't shadow memory at all. > >Sure, it is possible to find out about Windows internals, but a port to an > >open-source OS would be *much* easier. > > I think that's not the major problem here. What do you think is the major problem? > Let's say I am providing a precedent you can point people at (is this > mailing list archived somewhere?) The list is archived at SF.net, but unfortunately I don't think it's searchable, which is pretty lame. N |
|
From: Nicholas N. <nj...@ca...> - 2003-12-01 12:58:28
|
Hi, Is there any difference between RESOLVED, VERIFIED and CLOSED in Bugzilla? bugs.kde.org/bug_status.html doesn't show any difference. Thanks. N |
|
From: Nicholas N. <nj...@ca...> - 2003-12-01 11:54:48
|
CVS commit by nethercote:
Fixed test in section finding code that was broken for .plt and .got sections.
Thanks to Tom Hughes for the patch.
M +4 -7 vg_symtab2.c 1.60
--- valgrind/coregrind/vg_symtab2.c #1.59:1.60
@@ -983,15 +983,12 @@ Bool vg_read_lib_symbols ( SegInfo* si )
if (0 != sec_data) \
VG_(core_panic)("repeated section!\n"); \
- if (in_exec) { \
+ if (in_exec) \
sec_data = (type)(si->offset + shdr[i].sh_addr); \
- sec_size = shdr[i].sh_size; \
- } else { \
+ else \
sec_data = (type)(oimage + shdr[i].sh_offset); \
sec_size = shdr[i].sh_size; \
- } \
TRACE_SYMTAB( "%18s: %p .. %p\n", \
sec_name, sec_data, sec_data + sec_size - 1); \
- if ( sec_size + (UChar*)sec_data > n_oimage + (UChar*)oimage) \
- { \
+ if ( shdr[i].sh_offset + sec_size > n_oimage ) { \
VG_(symerr)(" section beyond image end?!"); \
goto out; \
|