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
(4) |
2
(17) |
3
(9) |
4
(14) |
5
(10) |
6
(11) |
7
(8) |
|
8
(9) |
9
(11) |
10
(29) |
11
(27) |
12
(29) |
13
(36) |
14
(8) |
|
15
(18) |
16
(30) |
17
(25) |
18
(6) |
19
(16) |
20
(13) |
21
(10) |
|
22
(16) |
23
(7) |
24
(8) |
25
(13) |
26
(14) |
27
(14) |
28
(5) |
|
29
(6) |
30
(21) |
31
(14) |
|
|
|
|
|
From: Nicholas N. <n.n...@gm...> - 2009-03-07 11:08:59
|
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Julian Seward <js...@ac...> wrote: > > I think this is a Good Thing. Minor comments: > > * comments, line 94/95: you have the phrase "a block of interest" > and I wasn't sure what "interest" means here I'll clarify: "the block being categorised" (and the "___" block is "an auxiliary block"). > * typedef LC_Extra: isn't there an inconsistency here between > the use of SizeT and UWord, in the definition of indirect_szB? True, but I just copied it from MC_Chunk's definition :) I'll change both cases to only use SizeT. > * it all still works with DEBUG_LEAKCHECK=1 and DEBUG_CLIQUE=1 ? I don't know if the output is exactly the same, but it compiles and runs. Thanks for the comments. N |
|
From: Julian S. <js...@ac...> - 2009-03-07 09:16:18
|
I think this is a Good Thing. Minor comments: * comments, line 94/95: you have the phrase "a block of interest" and I wasn't sure what "interest" means here * typedef LC_Extra: isn't there an inconsistency here between the use of SizeT and UWord, in the definition of indirect_szB? * it all still works with DEBUG_LEAKCHECK=1 and DEBUG_CLIQUE=1 ? J |
|
From: Bart V. A. <bar...@gm...> - 2009-03-07 08:43:16
|
Nightly build on georgia-tech-cellbuzz-native ( cellbuzz, ppc64, Fedora 7, native ) started at 2009-03-07 02:00:01 EST Results unchanged from 24 hours ago Checking out valgrind source tree ... done Configuring valgrind ... done Building valgrind ... done Running regression tests ... done Regression test results follow == 405 tests, 37 stderr failures, 9 stdout failures, 0 post failures == exp-ptrcheck/tests/bad_percentify (stderr) exp-ptrcheck/tests/base (stderr) exp-ptrcheck/tests/ccc (stderr) exp-ptrcheck/tests/fp (stderr) exp-ptrcheck/tests/globalerr (stderr) exp-ptrcheck/tests/hackedbz2 (stderr) exp-ptrcheck/tests/hp_bounds (stderr) exp-ptrcheck/tests/hp_dangle (stderr) exp-ptrcheck/tests/justify (stderr) exp-ptrcheck/tests/partial_bad (stderr) exp-ptrcheck/tests/partial_good (stderr) exp-ptrcheck/tests/preen_invars (stderr) exp-ptrcheck/tests/pth_create (stderr) exp-ptrcheck/tests/pth_specific (stderr) exp-ptrcheck/tests/realloc (stderr) exp-ptrcheck/tests/stackerr (stderr) exp-ptrcheck/tests/strcpy (stderr) exp-ptrcheck/tests/supp (stderr) exp-ptrcheck/tests/tricky (stderr) exp-ptrcheck/tests/unaligned (stderr) exp-ptrcheck/tests/zero (stderr) helgrind/tests/hg05_race2 (stderr) helgrind/tests/tc18_semabuse (stderr) helgrind/tests/tc20_verifywrap (stderr) memcheck/tests/deep_templates (stdout) memcheck/tests/leak-cycle (stderr) memcheck/tests/leak-tree (stderr) memcheck/tests/origin5-bz2 (stderr) memcheck/tests/varinfo1 (stderr) memcheck/tests/varinfo2 (stderr) memcheck/tests/varinfo3 (stderr) memcheck/tests/varinfo4 (stderr) memcheck/tests/varinfo5 (stderr) memcheck/tests/varinfo6 (stderr) memcheck/tests/wrap8 (stderr) none/tests/linux/mremap (stderr) none/tests/linux/mremap2 (stdout) none/tests/ppc32/jm-fp (stdout) none/tests/ppc32/jm-vmx (stdout) none/tests/ppc32/round (stdout) none/tests/ppc32/test_gx (stdout) none/tests/ppc64/jm-fp (stdout) none/tests/ppc64/jm-vmx (stdout) none/tests/ppc64/round (stdout) none/tests/shell_valid2 (stderr) none/tests/shell_valid3 (stderr) |
|
From: Nicholas N. <n.n...@gm...> - 2009-03-07 05:40:04
|
> ================================================= > ./valgrind/helgrind/tests/hg05_race2.stderr.diff-glibc27-amd64 > ================================================= > --- hg05_race2.stderr.exp-glibc27-amd64 2009-03-07 03:33:58.000000000 +0000 > +++ hg05_race2.stderr.out 2009-03-07 03:44:04.000000000 +0000 > @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ > by 0x........: start_thread (in /lib/libpthread...) > by 0x........: clone (in /...libc...) > Location 0x........ is 0 bytes inside foo.poot[5].plop[11], > - declared at hg05_race2.c:24, in frame #3 of thread x > + declared at hg05_race2.c:24, in frame #2 of thread x > > Possible data race during write of size 4 at 0x........ by thread #x > at 0x........: th (hg05_race2.c:17) > @@ -35,6 +35,6 @@ > by 0x........: start_thread (in /lib/libpthread...) > by 0x........: clone (in /...libc...) > Location 0x........ is 0 bytes inside foo.poot[5].plop[11], > - declared at hg05_race2.c:24, in frame #3 of thread x > + declared at hg05_race2.c:24, in frame #2 of thread x This one is failing intermittently, which is annoying. Is it ok to filter the frame number, as is done for thread numbers? N |
|
From: Tom H. <th...@cy...> - 2009-03-07 03:48:11
|
Nightly build on vauxhall ( x86_64, Fedora 10 ) started at 2009-03-07 03:20:04 GMT Results differ from 24 hours ago Checking out valgrind source tree ... done Configuring valgrind ... done Building valgrind ... done Running regression tests ... failed Regression test results follow == 485 tests, 1 stderr failure, 0 stdout failures, 0 post failures == helgrind/tests/hg05_race2 (stderr) ================================================= == Results from 24 hours ago == ================================================= Checking out valgrind source tree ... done Configuring valgrind ... done Building valgrind ... done Running regression tests ... failed Regression test results follow == 485 tests, 0 stderr failures, 1 stdout failure, 0 post failures == none/tests/pth_cvsimple (stdout) ================================================= == Difference between 24 hours ago and now == ================================================= *** old.short Sat Mar 7 03:33:55 2009 --- new.short Sat Mar 7 03:48:03 2009 *************** *** 8,11 **** ! == 485 tests, 0 stderr failures, 1 stdout failure, 0 post failures == ! none/tests/pth_cvsimple (stdout) --- 8,11 ---- ! == 485 tests, 1 stderr failure, 0 stdout failures, 0 post failures == ! helgrind/tests/hg05_race2 (stderr) |
|
From: Tom H. <th...@cy...> - 2009-03-07 03:45:01
|
Nightly build on lloyd ( x86_64, Fedora 7 ) started at 2009-03-07 03:05:08 GMT Results unchanged from 24 hours ago Checking out valgrind source tree ... done Configuring valgrind ... done Building valgrind ... done Running regression tests ... failed Regression test results follow == 476 tests, 5 stderr failures, 0 stdout failures, 0 post failures == exp-ptrcheck/tests/ccc (stderr) exp-ptrcheck/tests/preen_invars (stderr) exp-ptrcheck/tests/pth_create (stderr) exp-ptrcheck/tests/pth_specific (stderr) helgrind/tests/tc20_verifywrap (stderr) |
|
From: Tom H. <th...@cy...> - 2009-03-07 03:32:48
|
Nightly build on mg ( x86_64, Fedora 9 ) started at 2009-03-07 03:10:05 GMT Results unchanged from 24 hours ago Checking out valgrind source tree ... done Configuring valgrind ... done Building valgrind ... done Running regression tests ... failed Regression test results follow == 482 tests, 4 stderr failures, 1 stdout failure, 0 post failures == exp-ptrcheck/tests/ccc (stderr) exp-ptrcheck/tests/preen_invars (stderr) exp-ptrcheck/tests/pth_create (stderr) exp-ptrcheck/tests/pth_specific (stderr) none/tests/linux/mremap2 (stdout) |
|
From: Nicholas N. <n.n...@gm...> - 2009-03-07 02:50:32
|
Hi, I've done a big overhaul of the leak checker. The log message is below. The diff is attached. Because mc_leakcheck.c has changed so much, the diff isn't much good for it, so I've attached the new mc_leakcheck.c as well. If no-one has objections I'll commit it in a day or two. Nick This commit completely overhauls the leak checker. In particular: - It heavily refactors the code: uses better names for things, splits up complex functions that behaved very differently depending on how they were called, removes some redundancies, and generally makes it much simpler and easier to follow. - It adds lots of comments, both inline, and also a big explanatory one at the top which makes it clear exactly how the leak checker works and also exactly what is meant by definite, possible, and indirect leaks. It also has some ideas for future improvements. - All tabs have been converted to spaces. It also improves the functionality: - Previously if you did --leak-check=summary, indirect and suppressed counts were just included as definite leaks. Now they are done properly, and so the summary results from --leak-check=summary match those from --leak-check=yes. - Previously, some possibly reachable blocks were miscategorised as definitely reachable, because only the pointer to the block itself was considered, not any preceding pointers in the chain. This is now fixed. - Added memcheck/tests/leak-cases, which fully tests all the possible combinations of directly/indirectly reachable and possibly/definitely reachable. And it improves the manual quite a bit, and the FAQ a little bit. This doesn't fix the leak checker to handle MALLOCLIKE_BLOCK blocks that have been taken from within malloc'd blocks, but I think I know how to do it and hope to do so in a later commit. |