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
(7) |
2
(7) |
3
(11) |
4
(3) |
5
(6) |
|
6
(14) |
7
(25) |
8
(14) |
9
(21) |
10
(16) |
11
(3) |
12
(12) |
|
13
|
14
(5) |
15
(11) |
16
(4) |
17
(18) |
18
(15) |
19
|
|
20
(1) |
21
(14) |
22
(7) |
23
(14) |
24
(9) |
25
(14) |
26
(5) |
|
27
(12) |
28
(1) |
29
(5) |
30
|
|
|
|
|
From: Christian B. <bor...@de...> - 2011-11-04 20:46:54
|
On 04/11/11 19:40, Maynard Johnson wrote: > Hi, Julian, > My coworker, Carl Love, has started looking into adding support for Decimal > Floating Point (DFP) to Valgrind. The DFP feature was first made available for > the PowerPC architecture with ISA 2.05 (POWER6), and was expanded with some new > instructions in ISA 2.06 (POWER7). So there's now a total of 50 instructions in > the DFP category in the latest PowerPC architecture. There are (AFICT) three > different approaches we could take to implement this support: > > 1. Use existing PowerPC support > 2. Define new Iops (hopefully could get by with something less than 50) > 3. Use the Iex_CCall type of IRExpr to invoke a helper that executes the > native DFP instruction > > Since you have indicated in the past a reluctance to add new Iops if there's a > good alternative, I asked Carl to investigate option #1 first. But this option > would be quite impractical due to the complexity of DFP, requiring a *LOT* of IR > code -- so much IR, in fact, that before Carl had even completed implementing > one instruction, his code blew up due to exceeding the limit of IR instructions > (Assertion `instrs_in->arr_used <= 10000' failed)! Agreed, emulating DFP with IR is definitely the wrong way. > Next, I asked Carl to look at the feasibility of using the Iex_CCall to a > helper. This looks promising, but is non-standard and not as straightforward as > implementing via an instruction-specific Iop. Yes, this would work but this is also slow and non-standard. > Since the s390 architecture also has a DFP feature, we got in touch with our > counterparts in s390 (mainly Christian Borntraeger). They, too, have tentative > plans to add support for their DFP to Valgrind. Unfortunately, there seems to > be very little overlap between s390 and PowerPC DFP functionality. The s390 DFP > feature employs just 10 instructions, while the PowerPC uses 50 (the difference > presumably due to CISC vs RISC). So if we were to define new Iops for PowerPC, > I don't think any of them would be useful for s390; thus, they would need to > define their own set of Iops. I think that adding Iops is the right way to do. I just realized that we pointed Maynard to the wrong chapter of the POP (only the support instructions) - sorry for that. From a first glance it looks like s390 has almost the same ops for long (64bit) and extended (128bit) as powerpc. So to me it looks like the powerpc and s390 Iops could be the same. Maynard, Carl can you check chapter 20 and verify my observation? Julian, please be aware that Intel is also planning to provide decimal floating point in the future. They will use a different representation: - binary integer significand field encodes the significand as a large binary integer between 0 and 10p−1. vs. - densely packed decimal significand field encodes decimal digits more directly. but I think this should not matter for IR at all. I have not seen the specs, but I am confident that we could reuse a lot of the Iops for Intel as well (like add,subtract, multiply, divide, compare, convert from/to signed/unsigned int....) Given the novelty of decimal floating point libraries a tool like valgrind would be really helpful. Christian |
|
From: Maynard J. <may...@us...> - 2011-11-04 18:39:37
|
Hi, Julian, My coworker, Carl Love, has started looking into adding support for Decimal Floating Point (DFP) to Valgrind. The DFP feature was first made available for the PowerPC architecture with ISA 2.05 (POWER6), and was expanded with some new instructions in ISA 2.06 (POWER7). So there's now a total of 50 instructions in the DFP category in the latest PowerPC architecture. There are (AFICT) three different approaches we could take to implement this support: 1. Use existing PowerPC support 2. Define new Iops (hopefully could get by with something less than 50) 3. Use the Iex_CCall type of IRExpr to invoke a helper that executes the native DFP instruction Since you have indicated in the past a reluctance to add new Iops if there's a good alternative, I asked Carl to investigate option #1 first. But this option would be quite impractical due to the complexity of DFP, requiring a *LOT* of IR code -- so much IR, in fact, that before Carl had even completed implementing one instruction, his code blew up due to exceeding the limit of IR instructions (Assertion `instrs_in->arr_used <= 10000' failed)! Next, I asked Carl to look at the feasibility of using the Iex_CCall to a helper. This looks promising, but is non-standard and not as straightforward as implementing via an instruction-specific Iop. Since the s390 architecture also has a DFP feature, we got in touch with our counterparts in s390 (mainly Christian Borntraeger). They, too, have tentative plans to add support for their DFP to Valgrind. Unfortunately, there seems to be very little overlap between s390 and PowerPC DFP functionality. The s390 DFP feature employs just 10 instructions, while the PowerPC uses 50 (the difference presumably due to CISC vs RISC). So if we were to define new Iops for PowerPC, I don't think any of them would be useful for s390; thus, they would need to define their own set of Iops. Given the information above, what advice/recommendation can you give us on which approach to take? Thanks. -Maynard |
|
From: <br...@ac...> - 2011-11-04 02:17:42
|
valgrind revision: 12257
VEX revision: 2231
C compiler: gcc (GCC) 3.4.6 20060404 (Red Hat 3.4.6-3)
Assembler: GNU assembler 2.15.92.0.2 20040927
C library: GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4, by Roland McGrath et al.
uname -mrs: Linux 2.6.9-42.EL s390x
Vendor version: Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS release 4 (Nahant Update 4)
Nightly build on z900 ( s390x build on z900 )
Started at 2011-11-03 19:30:05 EDT
Ended at 2011-11-03 22:24:34 EDT
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
== 473 tests, 9 stderr failures, 0 stdout failures, 0 stderrB failures, 0 stdoutB failures, 0 post failures ==
memcheck/tests/manuel3 (stderr)
memcheck/tests/partial_load_ok (stderr)
memcheck/tests/varinfo6 (stderr)
helgrind/tests/tc09_bad_unlock (stderr)
helgrind/tests/tc14_laog_dinphils (stderr)
helgrind/tests/tc18_semabuse (stderr)
helgrind/tests/tc20_verifywrap (stderr)
drd/tests/tc04_free_lock (stderr)
drd/tests/tc09_bad_unlock (stderr)
=================================================
./valgrind-new/drd/tests/tc04_free_lock.stderr.diff
=================================================
--- tc04_free_lock.stderr.exp 2011-11-03 21:00:05.000000000 -0400
+++ tc04_free_lock.stderr.out 2011-11-03 22:21:35.000000000 -0400
@@ -8,7 +8,8 @@
Destroying locked mutex: mutex 0x........, recursion count 1, owner 1.
at 0x........: bar (tc04_free_lock.c:40)
- by 0x........: main (tc04_free_lock.c:26)
+ by 0x........: process_dl_debug (in /lib64/ld-2.3.4.so)
+ by 0x........: ???
mutex 0x........ was first observed at:
at 0x........: pthread_mutex_lock (drd_pthread_intercepts.c:?)
by 0x........: bar (tc04_free_lock.c:38)
@@ -16,19 +17,12 @@
Destroying locked mutex: mutex 0x........, recursion count 1, owner 1.
at 0x........: foo (tc04_free_lock.c:49)
- by 0x........: main (tc04_free_lock.c:27)
+ by 0x........: process_dl_debug (in /lib64/ld-2.3.4.so)
+ by 0x........: ???
mutex 0x........ was first observed at:
at 0x........: pthread_mutex_init (drd_pthread_intercepts.c:?)
by 0x........: foo (tc04_free_lock.c:46)
by 0x........: main (tc04_free_lock.c:27)
-Destroying locked mutex: mutex 0x........, recursion count 1, owner 1.
- at 0x........: bar (tc04_free_lock.c:40)
- by 0x........: main (tc04_free_lock.c:28)
-mutex 0x........ was first observed at:
- at 0x........: pthread_mutex_lock (drd_pthread_intercepts.c:?)
- by 0x........: bar (tc04_free_lock.c:38)
- by 0x........: main (tc04_free_lock.c:28)
-
-ERROR SUMMARY: 4 errors from 4 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
+ERROR SUMMARY: 4 errors from 3 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
=================================================
./valgrind-new/drd/tests/tc09_bad_unlock.stderr.diff
=================================================
--- tc09_bad_unlock.stderr.exp 2011-11-03 21:00:05.000000000 -0400
+++ tc09_bad_unlock.stderr.out 2011-11-03 22:21:55.000000000 -0400
@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@
Destroying locked mutex: mutex 0x........, recursion count 1, owner 1.
at 0x........: nearly_main (tc09_bad_unlock.c:45)
- by 0x........: main (tc09_bad_unlock.c:49)
+ by 0x........: ???
mutex 0x........ was first observed at:
at 0x........: pthread_mutex_init (drd_pthread_intercepts.c:?)
by 0x........: nearly_main (tc09_bad_unlock.c:31)
@@ -47,13 +47,5 @@
by 0x........: nearly_main (tc09_bad_unlock.c:41)
by 0x........: main (tc09_bad_unlock.c:50)
-Destroying locked mutex: mutex 0x........, recursion count 1, owner 1.
- at 0x........: nearly_main (tc09_bad_unlock.c:45)
- by 0x........: main (tc09_bad_unlock.c:50)
-mutex 0x........ was first observed at:
- at 0x........: pthread_mutex_init (drd_pthread_intercepts.c:?)
- by 0x........: nearly_main (tc09_bad_unlock.c:31)
- by 0x........: main (tc09_bad_unlock.c:50)
-
-ERROR SUMMARY: 8 errors from 7 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
+ERROR SUMMARY: 8 errors from 6 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
=================================================
./valgrind-new/drd/tests/tc09_bad_unlock.stderr.diff-glibc2.8
=================================================
--- tc09_bad_unlock.stderr.exp-glibc2.8 2011-11-03 21:00:05.000000000 -0400
+++ tc09_bad_unlock.stderr.out 2011-11-03 22:21:55.000000000 -0400
@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@
Destroying locked mutex: mutex 0x........, recursion count 1, owner 1.
at 0x........: nearly_main (tc09_bad_unlock.c:45)
- by 0x........: (below main)
+ by 0x........: ???
mutex 0x........ was first observed at:
at 0x........: pthread_mutex_init (drd_pthread_intercepts.c:?)
by 0x........: nearly_main (tc09_bad_unlock.c:31)
@@ -47,13 +47,5 @@
by 0x........: nearly_main (tc09_bad_unlock.c:41)
by 0x........: main (tc09_bad_unlock.c:50)
-Destroying locked mutex: mutex 0x........, recursion count 1, owner 1.
- at 0x........: nearly_main (tc09_bad_unlock.c:45)
- by 0x........: (below main)
-mutex 0x........ was first observed at:
- at 0x........: pthread_mutex_init (drd_pthread_intercepts.c:?)
- by 0x........: nearly_main (tc09_bad_unlock.c:31)
- by 0x........: main (tc09_bad_unlock.c:50)
-
-ERROR SUMMARY: 8 errors from 7 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
+ERROR SUMMARY: 8 errors from 6 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
=================================================
./valgrind-new/helgrind/tests/tc09_bad_unlock.stderr.diff
=================================================
--- tc09_bad_unlock.stderr.exp 2011-11-03 20:59:18.000000000 -0400
+++ tc09_bad_unlock.stderr.out 2011-11-03 22:01:54.000000000 -0400
@@ -42,14 +42,6 @@
by 0x........: nearly_main (tc09_bad_unlock.c:41)
by 0x........: main (tc09_bad_unlock.c:49)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-
-Thread #x's call to pthread_mutex_unlock failed
- with error code 22 (EINVAL: Invalid argument)
- at 0x........: pthread_mutex_unlock (hg_intercepts.c:...)
- by 0x........: nearly_main (tc09_bad_unlock.c:41)
- by 0x........: main (tc09_bad_unlock.c:49)
-
---------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
@@ -110,16 +102,8 @@
----------------------------------------------------------------
-Thread #x's call to pthread_mutex_unlock failed
- with error code 22 (EINVAL: Invalid argument)
- at 0x........: pthread_mutex_unlock (hg_intercepts.c:...)
- by 0x........: nearly_main (tc09_bad_unlock.c:41)
- by 0x........: main (tc09_bad_unlock.c:50)
-
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-
Thread #x: Exiting thread still holds 1 lock
...
-ERROR SUMMARY: 11 errors from 11 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
+ERROR SUMMARY: 9 errors from 9 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
=================================================
./valgrind-new/helgrind/tests/tc14_laog_dinphils.stderr.diff
=================================================
--- tc14_laog_dinphils.stderr.exp 2011-11-03 20:59:18.000000000 -0400
+++ tc14_laog_dinphils.stderr.out 2011-11-03 22:02:23.000000000 -0400
@@ -20,5 +20,26 @@
by 0x........: mythread_wrapper (hg_intercepts.c:...)
...
+---Thread-Announcement------------------------------------------
-ERROR SUMMARY: 1000 errors from 1 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
+Thread #x was created
+ ...
+ by 0x........: pthread_create_WRK (hg_intercepts.c:...)
+ by 0x........: pthread_create@* (hg_intercepts.c:...)
+ by 0x........: main (tc14_laog_dinphils.c:34)
+
+----------------------------------------------------------------
+
+Thread #x: lock order "0x........ before 0x........" violated
+
+Observed (incorrect) order is: acquisition of lock at 0x........
+ (stack unavailable)
+
+ followed by a later acquisition of lock at 0x........
+ at 0x........: pthread_mutex_lock (hg_intercepts.c:...)
+ by 0x........: dine (tc14_laog_dinphils.c:19)
+ by 0x........: mythread_wrapper (hg_intercepts.c:...)
+ ...
+
+
+ERROR SUMMARY: 1048 errors from 2 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
=================================================
./valgrind-new/helgrind/tests/tc18_semabuse.stderr.diff
=================================================
--- tc18_semabuse.stderr.exp 2011-11-03 20:59:18.000000000 -0400
+++ tc18_semabuse.stderr.out 2011-11-03 22:02:46.000000000 -0400
@@ -18,13 +18,5 @@
by 0x........: sem_wait (hg_intercepts.c:...)
by 0x........: main (tc18_semabuse.c:34)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-Thread #x's call to sem_post failed
- with error code 22 (EINVAL: Invalid argument)
- at 0x........: sem_post_WRK (hg_intercepts.c:...)
- by 0x........: sem_post (hg_intercepts.c:...)
- by 0x........: main (tc18_semabuse.c:37)
-
-
-ERROR SUMMARY: 3 errors from 3 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
+ERROR SUMMARY: 2 errors from 2 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
=================================================
./valgrind-new/helgrind/tests/tc20_verifywrap.stderr.diff
=================================================
--- tc20_verifywrap.stderr.exp 2011-11-03 20:59:18.000000000 -0400
+++ tc20_verifywrap.stderr.out 2011-11-03 22:03:51.000000000 -0400
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
------- This is output for >= glibc 2.4 ------
+------ This is output for < glibc 2.4 ------
---------------- pthread_create/join ----------------
@@ -45,13 +45,6 @@
----------------------------------------------------------------
-Thread #x's call to pthread_mutex_init failed
- with error code 95 (EOPNOTSUPP: Operation not supported on transport endpoint)
- at 0x........: pthread_mutex_init (hg_intercepts.c:...)
- by 0x........: main (tc20_verifywrap.c:92)
-
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-
Thread #x: pthread_mutex_destroy of a locked mutex
at 0x........: pthread_mutex_destroy (hg_intercepts.c:...)
by 0x........: main (tc20_verifywrap.c:102)
@@ -63,26 +56,8 @@
at 0x........: pthread_mutex_destroy (hg_intercepts.c:...)
by 0x........: main (tc20_verifywrap.c:102)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-
-Thread #x's call to pthread_mutex_lock failed
- with error code 22 (EINVAL: Invalid argument)
- at 0x........: pthread_mutex_lock (hg_intercepts.c:...)
- by 0x........: main (tc20_verifywrap.c:108)
-
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-Thread #x's call to pthread_mutex_trylock failed
- with error code 22 (EINVAL: Invalid argument)
- at 0x........: pthread_mutex_trylock (hg_intercepts.c:...)
- by 0x........: main (tc20_verifywrap.c:116)
-
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-
-Thread #x's call to pthread_mutex_timedlock failed
- with error code 22 (EINVAL: Invalid argument)
- at 0x........: pthread_mutex_timedlock (hg_intercepts.c:...)
- by 0x........: main (tc20_verifywrap.c:121)
+make pthread_mutex_lock fail: skipped on glibc < 2.4
----------------------------------------------------------------
@@ -90,13 +65,6 @@
at 0x........: pthread_mutex_unlock (hg_intercepts.c:...)
by 0x........: main (tc20_verifywrap.c:125)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-
-Thread #x's call to pthread_mutex_unlock failed
- with error code 22 (EINVAL: Invalid argument)
- at 0x........: pthread_mutex_unlock (hg_intercepts.c:...)
- by 0x........: main (tc20_verifywrap.c:125)
-
---------------- pthread_cond_wait et al ----------------
@@ -215,14 +183,6 @@
by 0x........: sem_wait (hg_intercepts.c:...)
by 0x........: main (tc20_verifywrap.c:242)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-
-Thread #x's call to sem_post failed
- with error code 22 (EINVAL: Invalid argument)
- at 0x........: sem_post_WRK (hg_intercepts.c:...)
- by 0x........: sem_post (hg_intercepts.c:...)
- by 0x........: main (tc20_verifywrap.c:245)
-
FIXME: can't figure out how to verify wrap of sem_post
@@ -235,4 +195,4 @@
...
-ERROR SUMMARY: 23 errors from 23 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
+ERROR SUMMARY: 17 errors from 17 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
=================================================
./valgrind-new/memcheck/tests/manuel3.stderr.diff
=================================================
--- manuel3.stderr.exp 2011-11-03 20:59:31.000000000 -0400
+++ manuel3.stderr.out 2011-11-03 21:32:14.000000000 -0400
@@ -1,4 +1,3 @@
Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)
- at 0x........: gcc_cant_inline_me (manuel3.c:22)
- by 0x........: main (manuel3.c:14)
+ at 0x........: main (manuel3.c:12)
=================================================
./valgrind-new/memcheck/tests/partial_load_ok.stderr.diff
=================================================
--- partial_load_ok.stderr.exp 2011-11-03 20:59:31.000000000 -0400
+++ partial_load_ok.stderr.out 2011-11-03 21:36:53.000000000 -0400
@@ -1,7 +1,13 @@
-Invalid read of size 4
+Invalid read of size 1
+ at 0x........: main (partial_load.c:16)
+ Address 0x........ is 0 bytes after a block of size 7 alloc'd
+ at 0x........: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:...)
+ by 0x........: main (partial_load.c:14)
+
+Invalid read of size 8
at 0x........: main (partial_load.c:23)
- Address 0x........ is 1 bytes inside a block of size 4 alloc'd
+ Address 0x........ is 1 bytes inside a block of size 8 alloc'd
at 0x........: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:...)
by 0x........: main (partial_load.c:20)
@@ -11,9 +17,9 @@
at 0x........: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:...)
by 0x........: main (partial_load.c:28)
-Invalid read of size 4
+Invalid read of size 8
at 0x........: main (partial_load.c:37)
- Address 0x........ is 0 bytes inside a block of size 4 free'd
+ Address 0x........ is 0 bytes inside a block of size 8 free'd
at 0x........: free (vg_replace_malloc.c:...)
by 0x........: main (partial_load.c:36)
@@ -25,4 +31,4 @@
For a detailed leak analysis, rerun with: --leak-check=full
For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -v
-ERROR SUMMARY: 3 errors from 3 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
+ERROR SUMMARY: 4 errors from 4 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
=================================================
./valgrind-new/memcheck/tests/partial_load_ok.stderr.diff64
=================================================
--- partial_load_ok.stderr.exp64 2011-11-03 20:59:31.000000000 -0400
+++ partial_load_ok.stderr.out 2011-11-03 21:36:53.000000000 -0400
@@ -1,4 +1,10 @@
+Invalid read of size 1
+ at 0x........: main (partial_load.c:16)
+ Address 0x........ is 0 bytes after a block of size 7 alloc'd
+ at 0x........: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:...)
+ by 0x........: main (partial_load.c:14)
+
Invalid read of size 8
at 0x........: main (partial_load.c:23)
Address 0x........ is 1 bytes inside a block of size 8 alloc'd
@@ -25,4 +31,4 @@
For a detailed leak analysis, rerun with: --leak-check=full
For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -v
-ERROR SUMMARY: 3 errors from 3 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
+ERROR SUMMARY: 4 errors from 4 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
=================================================
./valgrind-new/memcheck/tests/varinfo6.stderr.diff
=================================================
--- varinfo6.stderr.exp 2011-11-03 20:59:31.000000000 -0400
+++ varinfo6.stderr.out 2011-11-03 21:44:25.000000000 -0400
@@ -7,8 +7,7 @@
by 0x........: BZ2_bzCompress (varinfo6.c:4860)
by 0x........: BZ2_bzBuffToBuffCompress (varinfo6.c:5667)
by 0x........: main (varinfo6.c:6517)
- Location 0x........ is 2 bytes inside local var "budget"
- declared at varinfo6.c:3115, in frame #2 of thread 1
+ Address 0x........ is on thread 1's stack
Uninitialised byte(s) found during client check request
at 0x........: croak (varinfo6.c:34)
=================================================
./valgrind-new/memcheck/tests/varinfo6.stderr.diff-ppc64
=================================================
--- varinfo6.stderr.exp-ppc64 2011-11-03 20:59:31.000000000 -0400
+++ varinfo6.stderr.out 2011-11-03 21:44:25.000000000 -0400
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
Uninitialised byte(s) found during client check request
- at 0x........: croak (varinfo6.c:35)
+ at 0x........: croak (varinfo6.c:34)
by 0x........: mainSort (varinfo6.c:2999)
by 0x........: BZ2_blockSort (varinfo6.c:3143)
by 0x........: BZ2_compressBlock (varinfo6.c:4072)
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
Address 0x........ is on thread 1's stack
Uninitialised byte(s) found during client check request
- at 0x........: croak (varinfo6.c:35)
+ at 0x........: croak (varinfo6.c:34)
by 0x........: BZ2_decompress (varinfo6.c:1699)
by 0x........: BZ2_bzDecompress (varinfo6.c:5230)
by 0x........: BZ2_bzBuffToBuffDecompress (varinfo6.c:5715)
=================================================
./valgrind-old/drd/tests/tc04_free_lock.stderr.diff
=================================================
--- tc04_free_lock.stderr.exp 2011-11-03 19:30:58.000000000 -0400
+++ tc04_free_lock.stderr.out 2011-11-03 20:56:12.000000000 -0400
@@ -8,7 +8,8 @@
Destroying locked mutex: mutex 0x........, recursion count 1, owner 1.
at 0x........: bar (tc04_free_lock.c:40)
- by 0x........: main (tc04_free_lock.c:26)
+ by 0x........: process_dl_debug (in /lib64/ld-2.3.4.so)
+ by 0x........: ???
mutex 0x........ was first observed at:
at 0x........: pthread_mutex_lock (drd_pthread_intercepts.c:?)
by 0x........: bar (tc04_free_lock.c:38)
@@ -16,19 +17,12 @@
Destroying locked mutex: mutex 0x........, recursion count 1, owner 1.
at 0x........: foo (tc04_free_lock.c:49)
- by 0x........: main (tc04_free_lock.c:27)
+ by 0x........: process_dl_debug (in /lib64/ld-2.3.4.so)
+ by 0x........: ???
mutex 0x........ was first observed at:
at 0x........: pthread_mutex_init (drd_pthread_intercepts.c:?)
by 0x........: foo (tc04_free_lock.c:46)
by 0x........: main (tc04_free_lock.c:27)
-Destroying locked mutex: mutex 0x........, recursion count 1, owner 1.
- at 0x........: bar (tc04_free_lock.c:40)
- by 0x........: main (tc04_free_lock.c:28)
-mutex 0x........ was first observed at:
- at 0x........: pthread_mutex_lock (drd_pthread_intercepts.c:?)
- by 0x........: bar (tc04_free_lock.c:38)
- by 0x........: main (tc04_free_lock.c:28)
-
-ERROR SUMMARY: 4 errors from 4 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
+ERROR SUMMARY: 4 errors from 3 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
=================================================
./valgrind-old/drd/tests/tc09_bad_unlock.stderr.diff
=================================================
--- tc09_bad_unlock.stderr.exp 2011-11-03 19:30:58.000000000 -0400
+++ tc09_bad_unlock.stderr.out 2011-11-03 20:56:32.000000000 -0400
@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@
Destroying locked mutex: mutex 0x........, recursion count 1, owner 1.
at 0x........: nearly_main (tc09_bad_unlock.c:45)
- by 0x........: main (tc09_bad_unlock.c:49)
+ by 0x........: ???
mutex 0x........ was first observed at:
at 0x........: pthread_mutex_init (drd_pthread_intercepts.c:?)
by 0x........: nearly_main (tc09_bad_unlock.c:31)
@@ -47,13 +47,5 @@
by 0x........: nearly_main (tc09_bad_unlock.c:41)
by 0x........: main (tc09_bad_unlock.c:50)
-Destroying locked mutex: mutex 0x........, recursion count 1, owner 1.
- at 0x........: nearly_main (tc09_bad_unlock.c:45)
- by 0x........: main (tc09_bad_unlock.c:50)
-mutex 0x........ was first observed at:
- at 0x........: pthread_mutex_init (drd_pthread_intercepts.c:?)
- by 0x........: nearly_main (tc09_bad_unlock.c:31)
- by 0x........: main (tc09_bad_unlock.c:50)
-
-ERROR SUMMARY: 8 errors from 7 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
+ERROR SUMMARY: 8 errors from 6 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
=================================================
./valgrind-old/drd/tests/tc09_bad_unlock.stderr.diff-glibc2.8
=================================================
--- tc09_bad_unlock.stderr.exp-glibc2.8 2011-11-03 19:30:59.000000000 -0400
+++ tc09_bad_unlock.stderr.out 2011-11-03 20:56:32.000000000 -0400
@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@
Destroying locked mutex: mutex 0x........, recursion count 1, owner 1.
at 0x........: nearly_main (tc09_bad_unlock.c:45)
- by 0x........: (below main)
+ by 0x........: ???
mutex 0x........ was first observed at:
at 0x........: pthread_mutex_init (drd_pthread_intercepts.c:?)
by 0x........: nearly_main (tc09_bad_unlock.c:31)
@@ -47,13 +47,5 @@
by 0x........: nearly_main (tc09_bad_unlock.c:41)
by 0x........: main (tc09_bad_unlock.c:50)
-Destroying locked mutex: mutex 0x........, recursion count 1, owner 1.
- at 0x........: nearly_main (tc09_bad_unlock.c:45)
- by 0x........: (below main)
-mutex 0x........ was first observed at:
- at 0x........: pthread_mutex_init (drd_pthread_intercepts.c:?)
- by 0x........: nearly_main (tc09_bad_unlock.c:31)
- by 0x........: main (tc09_bad_unlock.c:50)
-
-ERROR SUMMARY: 8 errors from 7 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
+ERROR SUMMARY: 8 errors from 6 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
=================================================
./valgrind-old/helgrind/tests/tc09_bad_unlock.stderr.diff
=================================================
--- tc09_bad_unlock.stderr.exp 2011-11-03 19:30:15.000000000 -0400
+++ tc09_bad_unlock.stderr.out 2011-11-03 20:32:48.000000000 -0400
@@ -42,14 +42,6 @@
by 0x........: nearly_main (tc09_bad_unlock.c:41)
by 0x........: main (tc09_bad_unlock.c:49)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-
-Thread #x's call to pthread_mutex_unlock failed
- with error code 22 (EINVAL: Invalid argument)
- at 0x........: pthread_mutex_unlock (hg_intercepts.c:...)
- by 0x........: nearly_main (tc09_bad_unlock.c:41)
- by 0x........: main (tc09_bad_unlock.c:49)
-
---------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------
@@ -110,16 +102,8 @@
----------------------------------------------------------------
-Thread #x's call to pthread_mutex_unlock failed
- with error code 22 (EINVAL: Invalid argument)
- at 0x........: pthread_mutex_unlock (hg_intercepts.c:...)
- by 0x........: nearly_main (tc09_bad_unlock.c:41)
- by 0x........: main (tc09_bad_unlock.c:50)
-
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-
Thread #x: Exiting thread still holds 1 lock
...
-ERROR SUMMARY: 11 errors from 11 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
+ERROR SUMMARY: 9 errors from 9 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
=================================================
./valgrind-old/helgrind/tests/tc14_laog_dinphils.stderr.diff
=================================================
--- tc14_laog_dinphils.stderr.exp 2011-11-03 19:30:15.000000000 -0400
+++ tc14_laog_dinphils.stderr.out 2011-11-03 20:33:17.000000000 -0400
@@ -20,5 +20,26 @@
by 0x........: mythread_wrapper (hg_intercepts.c:...)
...
+---Thread-Announcement------------------------------------------
-ERROR SUMMARY: 1000 errors from 1 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
+Thread #x was created
+ ...
+ by 0x........: pthread_create_WRK (hg_intercepts.c:...)
+ by 0x........: pthread_create@* (hg_intercepts.c:...)
+ by 0x........: main (tc14_laog_dinphils.c:34)
+
+----------------------------------------------------------------
+
+Thread #x: lock order "0x........ before 0x........" violated
+
+Observed (incorrect) order is: acquisition of lock at 0x........
+ (stack unavailable)
+
+ followed by a later acquisition of lock at 0x........
+ at 0x........: pthread_mutex_lock (hg_intercepts.c:...)
+ by 0x........: dine (tc14_laog_dinphils.c:19)
+ by 0x........: mythread_wrapper (hg_intercepts.c:...)
+ ...
+
+
+ERROR SUMMARY: 1048 errors from 2 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
=================================================
./valgrind-old/helgrind/tests/tc18_semabuse.stderr.diff
=================================================
--- tc18_semabuse.stderr.exp 2011-11-03 19:30:15.000000000 -0400
+++ tc18_semabuse.stderr.out 2011-11-03 20:33:39.000000000 -0400
@@ -18,13 +18,5 @@
by 0x........: sem_wait (hg_intercepts.c:...)
by 0x........: main (tc18_semabuse.c:34)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-Thread #x's call to sem_post failed
- with error code 22 (EINVAL: Invalid argument)
- at 0x........: sem_post_WRK (hg_intercepts.c:...)
- by 0x........: sem_post (hg_intercepts.c:...)
- by 0x........: main (tc18_semabuse.c:37)
-
-
-ERROR SUMMARY: 3 errors from 3 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
+ERROR SUMMARY: 2 errors from 2 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
=================================================
./valgrind-old/helgrind/tests/tc20_verifywrap.stderr.diff
=================================================
--- tc20_verifywrap.stderr.exp 2011-11-03 19:30:15.000000000 -0400
+++ tc20_verifywrap.stderr.out 2011-11-03 20:34:45.000000000 -0400
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
------- This is output for >= glibc 2.4 ------
+------ This is output for < glibc 2.4 ------
---------------- pthread_create/join ----------------
@@ -45,13 +45,6 @@
----------------------------------------------------------------
-Thread #x's call to pthread_mutex_init failed
- with error code 95 (EOPNOTSUPP: Operation not supported on transport endpoint)
- at 0x........: pthread_mutex_init (hg_intercepts.c:...)
- by 0x........: main (tc20_verifywrap.c:92)
-
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-
Thread #x: pthread_mutex_destroy of a locked mutex
at 0x........: pthread_mutex_destroy (hg_intercepts.c:...)
by 0x........: main (tc20_verifywrap.c:102)
@@ -63,26 +56,8 @@
at 0x........: pthread_mutex_destroy (hg_intercepts.c:...)
by 0x........: main (tc20_verifywrap.c:102)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-
-Thread #x's call to pthread_mutex_lock failed
- with error code 22 (EINVAL: Invalid argument)
- at 0x........: pthread_mutex_lock (hg_intercepts.c:...)
- by 0x........: main (tc20_verifywrap.c:108)
-
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-Thread #x's call to pthread_mutex_trylock failed
- with error code 22 (EINVAL: Invalid argument)
- at 0x........: pthread_mutex_trylock (hg_intercepts.c:...)
- by 0x........: main (tc20_verifywrap.c:116)
-
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-
-Thread #x's call to pthread_mutex_timedlock failed
- with error code 22 (EINVAL: Invalid argument)
- at 0x........: pthread_mutex_timedlock (hg_intercepts.c:...)
- by 0x........: main (tc20_verifywrap.c:121)
+make pthread_mutex_lock fail: skipped on glibc < 2.4
----------------------------------------------------------------
@@ -90,13 +65,6 @@
at 0x........: pthread_mutex_unlock (hg_intercepts.c:...)
by 0x........: main (tc20_verifywrap.c:125)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-
-Thread #x's call to pthread_mutex_unlock failed
- with error code 22 (EINVAL: Invalid argument)
- at 0x........: pthread_mutex_unlock (hg_intercepts.c:...)
- by 0x........: main (tc20_verifywrap.c:125)
-
---------------- pthread_cond_wait et al ----------------
@@ -215,14 +183,6 @@
by 0x........: sem_wait (hg_intercepts.c:...)
by 0x........: main (tc20_verifywrap.c:242)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-
-Thread #x's call to sem_post failed
- with error code 22 (EINVAL: Invalid argument)
- at 0x........: sem_post_WRK (hg_intercepts.c:...)
- by 0x........: sem_post (hg_intercepts.c:...)
- by 0x........: main (tc20_verifywrap.c:245)
-
FIXME: can't figure out how to verify wrap of sem_post
@@ -235,4 +195,4 @@
...
-ERROR SUMMARY: 23 errors from 23 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
+ERROR SUMMARY: 17 errors from 17 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
=================================================
./valgrind-old/memcheck/tests/manuel3.stderr.diff
=================================================
--- manuel3.stderr.exp 2011-11-03 19:30:29.000000000 -0400
+++ manuel3.stderr.out 2011-11-03 20:03:09.000000000 -0400
@@ -1,4 +1,3 @@
Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)
- at 0x........: gcc_cant_inline_me (manuel3.c:22)
- by 0x........: main (manuel3.c:14)
+ at 0x........: main (manuel3.c:12)
=================================================
./valgrind-old/memcheck/tests/partial_load_ok.stderr.diff
=================================================
--- partial_load_ok.stderr.exp 2011-11-03 19:30:29.000000000 -0400
+++ partial_load_ok.stderr.out 2011-11-03 20:07:47.000000000 -0400
@@ -1,7 +1,13 @@
-Invalid read of size 4
+Invalid read of size 1
+ at 0x........: main (partial_load.c:16)
+ Address 0x........ is 0 bytes after a block of size 7 alloc'd
+ at 0x........: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:...)
+ by 0x........: main (partial_load.c:14)
+
+Invalid read of size 8
at 0x........: main (partial_load.c:23)
- Address 0x........ is 1 bytes inside a block of size 4 alloc'd
+ Address 0x........ is 1 bytes inside a block of size 8 alloc'd
at 0x........: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:...)
by 0x........: main (partial_load.c:20)
@@ -11,9 +17,9 @@
at 0x........: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:...)
by 0x........: main (partial_load.c:28)
-Invalid read of size 4
+Invalid read of size 8
at 0x........: main (partial_load.c:37)
- Address 0x........ is 0 bytes inside a block of size 4 free'd
+ Address 0x........ is 0 bytes inside a block of size 8 free'd
at 0x........: free (vg_replace_malloc.c:...)
by 0x........: main (partial_load.c:36)
@@ -25,4 +31,4 @@
For a detailed leak analysis, rerun with: --leak-check=full
For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -v
-ERROR SUMMARY: 3 errors from 3 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
+ERROR SUMMARY: 4 errors from 4 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
=================================================
./valgrind-old/memcheck/tests/partial_load_ok.stderr.diff64
=================================================
--- partial_load_ok.stderr.exp64 2011-11-03 19:30:28.000000000 -0400
+++ partial_load_ok.stderr.out 2011-11-03 20:07:47.000000000 -0400
@@ -1,4 +1,10 @@
+Invalid read of size 1
+ at 0x........: main (partial_load.c:16)
+ Address 0x........ is 0 bytes after a block of size 7 alloc'd
+ at 0x........: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:...)
+ by 0x........: main (partial_load.c:14)
+
Invalid read of size 8
at 0x........: main (partial_load.c:23)
Address 0x........ is 1 bytes inside a block of size 8 alloc'd
@@ -25,4 +31,4 @@
For a detailed leak analysis, rerun with: --leak-check=full
For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -v
-ERROR SUMMARY: 3 errors from 3 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
+ERROR SUMMARY: 4 errors from 4 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0)
=================================================
./valgrind-old/memcheck/tests/varinfo6.stderr.diff
=================================================
--- varinfo6.stderr.exp 2011-11-03 19:30:29.000000000 -0400
+++ varinfo6.stderr.out 2011-11-03 20:15:20.000000000 -0400
@@ -7,8 +7,7 @@
by 0x........: BZ2_bzCompress (varinfo6.c:4860)
by 0x........: BZ2_bzBuffToBuffCompress (varinfo6.c:5667)
by 0x........: main (varinfo6.c:6517)
- Location 0x........ is 2 bytes inside local var "budget"
- declared at varinfo6.c:3115, in frame #2 of thread 1
+ Address 0x........ is on thread 1's stack
Uninitialised byte(s) found during client check request
at 0x........: croak (varinfo6.c:34)
=================================================
./valgrind-old/memcheck/tests/varinfo6.stderr.diff-ppc64
=================================================
--- varinfo6.stderr.exp-ppc64 2011-11-03 19:30:28.000000000 -0400
+++ varinfo6.stderr.out 2011-11-03 20:15:20.000000000 -0400
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
Uninitialised byte(s) found during client check request
- at 0x........: croak (varinfo6.c:35)
+ at 0x........: croak (varinfo6.c:34)
by 0x........: mainSort (varinfo6.c:2999)
by 0x........: BZ2_blockSort (varinfo6.c:3143)
by 0x........: BZ2_compressBlock (varinfo6.c:4072)
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
Address 0x........ is on thread 1's stack
Uninitialised byte(s) found during client check request
- at 0x........: croak (varinfo6.c:35)
+ at 0x........: croak (varinfo6.c:34)
by 0x........: BZ2_decompress (varinfo6.c:1699)
by 0x........: BZ2_bzDecompress (varinfo6.c:5230)
by 0x........: BZ2_bzBuffToBuffDecompress (varinfo6.c:5715)
|