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
(4) |
3
(2) |
4
|
|
5
(1) |
6
|
7
(1) |
8
(2) |
9
(3) |
10
(1) |
11
(6) |
|
12
|
13
(2) |
14
(4) |
15
(2) |
16
(1) |
17
(1) |
18
(24) |
|
19
(1) |
20
(4) |
21
(1) |
22
|
23
|
24
(5) |
25
(2) |
|
26
(6) |
27
(3) |
28
(5) |
|
|
|
|
|
From: <sv...@va...> - 2017-02-03 01:20:03
|
Author: petarj
Date: Fri Feb 3 01:19:55 2017
New Revision: 16220
Log:
fix leak-segv-jmp test for platforms with 64K pagesize
Increase the size of allocated array, so mprotect call does not end up
protecting non-allocated areas. This enables the test to work on
platforms with pagesize=64K.
Issue discovered on MIPS XLP machine with 64K pagesize.
Modified:
trunk/memcheck/tests/leak-segv-jmp.c
trunk/memcheck/tests/leak-segv-jmp.stderr.exp
Modified: trunk/memcheck/tests/leak-segv-jmp.c
==============================================================================
--- trunk/memcheck/tests/leak-segv-jmp.c (original)
+++ trunk/memcheck/tests/leak-segv-jmp.c Fri Feb 3 01:19:55 2017
@@ -287,7 +287,7 @@
long pagesize;
#define RNDPAGEDOWN(a) ((long)a & ~(pagesize-1))
int i;
- const int nr_ptr = (10000 * 4)/sizeof(char*);
+ const int nr_ptr = (10000 * 20)/sizeof(char*);
b10 = calloc (nr_ptr * sizeof(char*), 1);
for (i = 0; i < nr_ptr; i++)
Modified: trunk/memcheck/tests/leak-segv-jmp.stderr.exp
==============================================================================
--- trunk/memcheck/tests/leak-segv-jmp.stderr.exp (original)
+++ trunk/memcheck/tests/leak-segv-jmp.stderr.exp Fri Feb 3 01:19:55 2017
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
definitely lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
indirectly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
possibly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
- still reachable: 41,000 bytes in 2 blocks
+ still reachable: 201,000 bytes in 2 blocks
suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
Reachable blocks (those to which a pointer was found) are not shown.
To see them, rerun with: --leak-check=full --show-leak-kinds=all
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@
definitely lost: 1,000 bytes in 1 blocks
indirectly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
possibly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
- still reachable: 40,000 bytes in 1 blocks
+ still reachable: 200,000 bytes in 1 blocks
suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
Reachable blocks (those to which a pointer was found) are not shown.
To see them, rerun with: --leak-check=full --show-leak-kinds=all
@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@
definitely lost: 1,000 bytes in 1 blocks
indirectly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
possibly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
- still reachable: 40,000 bytes in 1 blocks
+ still reachable: 200,000 bytes in 1 blocks
suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
Reachable blocks (those to which a pointer was found) are not shown.
To see them, rerun with: --leak-check=full --show-leak-kinds=all
@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@
definitely lost: 1,000 bytes in 1 blocks
indirectly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
possibly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
- still reachable: 40,000 bytes in 1 blocks
+ still reachable: 200,000 bytes in 1 blocks
suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
Reachable blocks (those to which a pointer was found) are not shown.
To see them, rerun with: --leak-check=full --show-leak-kinds=all
@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@
by 0x........: f (leak-segv-jmp.c:295)
by 0x........: main (leak-segv-jmp.c:370)
-40,000 bytes in 1 blocks are possibly lost in loss record ... of ...
+200,000 bytes in 1 blocks are possibly lost in loss record ... of ...
at 0x........: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:...)
by 0x........: f (leak-segv-jmp.c:342)
by 0x........: main (leak-segv-jmp.c:370)
@@ -73,8 +73,8 @@
LEAK SUMMARY:
definitely lost: 1,000 bytes in 1 blocks
indirectly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
- possibly lost: 40,000 bytes in 1 blocks
- still reachable: 40,000 bytes in 1 blocks
+ possibly lost: 200,000 bytes in 1 blocks
+ still reachable: 200,000 bytes in 1 blocks
suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
Reachable blocks (those to which a pointer was found) are not shown.
To see them, rerun with: --leak-check=full --show-leak-kinds=all
@@ -83,19 +83,19 @@
LEAK SUMMARY:
definitely lost: 1,000 bytes in 1 blocks
indirectly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
- possibly lost: 40,000 bytes in 1 blocks
- still reachable: 40,000 bytes in 1 blocks
+ possibly lost: 200,000 bytes in 1 blocks
+ still reachable: 200,000 bytes in 1 blocks
suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
Rerun with --leak-check=full to see details of leaked memory
leaked: 1000 bytes in 1 blocks
-dubious: 40000 bytes in 1 blocks
-reachable: 40000 bytes in 1 blocks
+dubious: 200000 bytes in 1 blocks
+reachable: 200000 bytes in 1 blocks
suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
HEAP SUMMARY:
- in use at exit: 81,000 bytes in 3 blocks
- total heap usage: 3 allocs, 0 frees, 81,000 bytes allocated
+ in use at exit: 401,000 bytes in 3 blocks
+ total heap usage: 3 allocs, 0 frees, 401,000 bytes allocated
For a detailed leak analysis, rerun with: --leak-check=full
|
|
From: <sv...@va...> - 2017-02-03 00:35:02
|
Author: petarj
Date: Fri Feb 3 00:34:52 2017
New Revision: 16219
Log:
add suppression for helgrind/tests/tc22_exit_w_lock
Function pthread_create indirectly calls function memcpy. Helgrind
considers that memcpy is not thread safe function. For error reported
from pthread_create there is the suppression helgrind---_dl_allocate_tls
in the file glibc-2.34567-NPTL-helgrind.supp.
Since glibc version 2.23, memcpy is implemented by __mempcpy_inline.
This causes that call to memcpy from pthread_create is no longer
recognized by the suppression.
In test helgrind/tests/tc22_exit_w_lock, pthread_create is called twice,
and second call reports error, which causes failing of the test.
This patch adds suppression for glibc 2.23 and greater.
Patch by Tamara Vlahovic.
Related issue #375806.
Modified:
trunk/NEWS
trunk/glibc-2.34567-NPTL-helgrind.supp
Modified: trunk/NEWS
==============================================================================
--- trunk/NEWS (original)
+++ trunk/NEWS Fri Feb 3 00:34:52 2017
@@ -113,6 +113,7 @@
375514 valgrind_get_tls_addr() does not work in case of static TLS
375772 +1 error in get_elf_symbol_info() when computing value of 'hi' address
for ML_(find_rx_mapping)()
+375806 Test helgrind/tests/tc22_exit_w_lock fails with glibc 2.24
Release 3.12.0 (20 October 2016)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Modified: trunk/glibc-2.34567-NPTL-helgrind.supp
==============================================================================
--- trunk/glibc-2.34567-NPTL-helgrind.supp (original)
+++ trunk/glibc-2.34567-NPTL-helgrind.supp Fri Feb 3 00:34:52 2017
@@ -267,6 +267,18 @@
fun:pthread_create@*
}
+{
+ helgrind---_dl_allocate_tls2
+ Helgrind:Race
+ fun:memcpy
+ fun:__mempcpy_inline
+ fun:_dl_allocate_tls_init
+ ...
+ fun:pthread_create@@GLIBC_2.2*
+ fun:pthread_create_WRK
+ fun:pthread_create@*
+}
+
####################################################
# To do with GNU libgomp
#
|