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
(2) |
2
(2) |
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
(3) |
7
(1) |
8
(1) |
9
(4) |
10
(1) |
11
(1) |
|
12
(2) |
13
(7) |
14
(3) |
15
(2) |
16
(7) |
17
(1) |
18
(2) |
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
From: Feiyang C. <chr...@gm...> - 2022-06-10 08:38:53
|
Hi, team, After fixing some decoding and stack backtracking bugs, Valgrind for loongarch64-linux successfully passed most of the tests. https://github.com/loongson/valgrind-loongarch64 I will try to get Valgrind to pass more tests. But now I have some doubts. Could you help me, please? There are more dubious and reachable blocks in some memcheck tests. I don't know what's wrong with it. $ valgrind --leak-check=full --leak-resolution=high memcheck/tests/leak-cases ==166906== Memcheck, a memory error detector ==166906== Copyright (C) 2002-2022, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al. ==166906== Using Valgrind-3.20.0.GIT and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info ==166906== Command: memcheck/tests/leak-cases ==166906== ==166906== All heap blocks were freed -- no leaks are possible ==166906== ==166906== LEAK SUMMARY: ==166906== definitely lost: 32 bytes in 2 blocks ==166906== indirectly lost: 16 bytes in 1 blocks ==166906== possibly lost: 112 bytes in 7 blocks ==166906== still reachable: 80 bytes in 5 blocks ==166906== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks ==166906== Rerun with --leak-check=full to see details of leaked memory ==166906== leaked: 48 bytes in 3 blocks dubious: 112 bytes in 7 blocks reachable: 80 bytes in 5 blocks suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks ==166906== ==166906== HEAP SUMMARY: ==166906== in use at exit: 240 bytes in 15 blocks ==166906== total heap usage: 15 allocs, 0 frees, 240 bytes allocated ==166906== ==166906== 16 bytes in 1 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 7 of 17 ==166906== at 0x484704C: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:393) ==166906== by 0x120A27: mk (leak-cases.c:52) ==166906== by 0x120AC3: f (leak-cases.c:78) ==166906== by 0x120DE7: main (leak-cases.c:107) ==166906== ==166906== 16 bytes in 1 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 8 of 17 ==166906== at 0x484704C: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:393) ==166906== by 0x120A27: mk (leak-cases.c:52) ==166906== by 0x120AF7: f (leak-cases.c:81) ==166906== by 0x120DE7: main (leak-cases.c:107) ==166906== ==166906== 16 bytes in 1 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 9 of 17 ==166906== at 0x484704C: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:393) ==166906== by 0x120A27: mk (leak-cases.c:52) ==166906== by 0x120B33: f (leak-cases.c:84) ==166906== by 0x120DE7: main (leak-cases.c:107) ==166906== ==166906== 16 bytes in 1 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 10 of 17 ==166906== at 0x484704C: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:393) ==166906== by 0x120A27: mk (leak-cases.c:52) ==166906== by 0x120B3F: f (leak-cases.c:84) ==166906== by 0x120DE7: main (leak-cases.c:107) ==166906== ==166906== 16 bytes in 1 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 11 of 17 ==166906== at 0x484704C: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:393) ==166906== by 0x120A27: mk (leak-cases.c:52) ==166906== by 0x120B73: f (leak-cases.c:87) ==166906== by 0x120DE7: main (leak-cases.c:107) ==166906== ==166906== 16 bytes in 1 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 12 of 17 ==166906== at 0x484704C: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:393) ==166906== by 0x120A27: mk (leak-cases.c:52) ==166906== by 0x120B7F: f (leak-cases.c:87) ==166906== by 0x120DE7: main (leak-cases.c:107) ==166906== ==166906== 16 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 15 of 17 ==166906== at 0x484704C: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:393) ==166906== by 0x120A27: mk (leak-cases.c:52) ==166906== by 0x120AA7: f (leak-cases.c:74) ==166906== by 0x120DE7: main (leak-cases.c:107) ==166906== ==166906== 32 (16 direct, 16 indirect) bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 16 of 17 ==166906== at 0x484704C: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:393) ==166906== by 0x120A27: mk (leak-cases.c:52) ==166906== by 0x120ABB: f (leak-cases.c:76) ==166906== by 0x120DE7: main (leak-cases.c:107) ==166906== ==166906== 32 (16 direct, 16 indirect) bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 17 of 17 ==166906== at 0x484704C: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:393) ==166906== by 0x120A27: mk (leak-cases.c:52) ==166906== by 0x120BD7: f (leak-cases.c:91) ==166906== by 0x120DE7: main (leak-cases.c:107) ==166906== ==166906== LEAK SUMMARY: ==166906== definitely lost: 48 bytes in 3 blocks ==166906== indirectly lost: 32 bytes in 2 blocks ==166906== possibly lost: 96 bytes in 6 blocks ==166906== still reachable: 64 bytes in 4 blocks ==166906== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks ==166906== Reachable blocks (those to which a pointer was found) are not shown. ==166906== To see them, rerun with: --leak-check=full --show-leak-kinds=all ==166906== ==166906== For lists of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -s ==166906== ERROR SUMMARY: 9 errors from 9 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0) I add four functions in glibc-2.X-helgrind.supp.in: '_dl_lookup_symbol_x', '_dl_map_object_deps', '_dl_sort_maps_dfs' and '_dl_fini'. I don't know why they cause errors. $ valgrind --tool=helgrind helgrind/tests/bar_bad ==166897== Helgrind, a thread error detector ==166897== Copyright (C) 2007-2017, and GNU GPL'd, by OpenWorks LLP et al. ==166897== Using Valgrind-3.20.0.GIT and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info ==166897== Command: helgrind/tests/bar_bad ==166897== initialise a barrier with zero count ==166897== ---Thread-Announcement------------------------------------------ ==166897== ==166897== Thread #1 is the program's root thread ==166897== ==166897== ---------------------------------------------------------------- ==166897== ==166897== Thread #1: pthread_barrier_init: 'count' argument is zero ==166897== at 0x4855184: pthread_barrier_init (hg_intercepts.c:1869) ==166897== by 0x120CEB: main (bar_bad.c:44) ==166897== ==166897== ---------------------------------------------------------------- ==166897== ==166897== Thread #1's call to pthread_barrier_init failed ==166897== with error code 22 (EINVAL: Invalid argument) ==166897== at 0x4855244: pthread_barrier_init (hg_intercepts.c:1877) ==166897== by 0x120CEB: main (bar_bad.c:44) ==166897== initialise a barrier twice ==166897== ---------------------------------------------------------------- ==166897== ==166897== Thread #1: pthread_barrier_init: barrier is already initialised ==166897== at 0x4855184: pthread_barrier_init (hg_intercepts.c:1869) ==166897== by 0x120D3F: main (bar_bad.c:50) ==166897== initialise a barrier which has threads waiting on it ==166897== ---Thread-Announcement------------------------------------------ ==166897== ==166897== Thread #2 was created ==166897== at 0x4978F68: clone (clone.S:56) ==166897== by 0x490F27B: create_thread (pthread_create.c:295) ==166897== by 0x490FC47: pthread_create@@GLIBC_2.36 (pthread_create.c:828) ==166897== by 0x4853883: pthread_create_WRK (hg_intercepts.c:445) ==166897== by 0x4854B2F: pthread_create@* (hg_intercepts.c:478) ==166897== by 0x120D9F: main (bar_bad.c:59) ==166897== ==166897== ---------------------------------------------------------------- ==166897== ==166897== Possible data race during read of size 8 at 0x4030B10 by thread #2 ==166897== Locks held: none ==166897== at 0x400B1A4: _dl_lookup_symbol_x (dl-lookup.c:824) ==166897== by 0x4010953: _dl_fixup (dl-runtime.c:95) ==166897== by 0x4012B27: _dl_runtime_resolve (dl-trampoline.S:62) ==166897== by 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF: ??? ==166897== ==166897== This conflicts with a previous write of size 8 by thread #1 ==166897== Locks held: none ==166897== at 0x400B1C0: _dl_lookup_symbol_x (dl-lookup.c:824) ==166897== by 0x4010953: _dl_fixup (dl-runtime.c:95) ==166897== by 0x4012B27: _dl_runtime_resolve (dl-trampoline.S:62) ==166897== by 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF: ??? ==166897== Address 0x4030b10 is 2712 bytes inside data symbol "_rtld_local" ==166897== ==166897== ---------------------------------------------------------------- ==166897== ==166897== Possible data race during write of size 8 at 0x4030B10 by thread #2 ==166897== Locks held: none ==166897== at 0x400B1C0: _dl_lookup_symbol_x (dl-lookup.c:824) ==166897== by 0x4010953: _dl_fixup (dl-runtime.c:95) ==166897== by 0x4012B27: _dl_runtime_resolve (dl-trampoline.S:62) ==166897== by 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF: ??? ==166897== ==166897== This conflicts with a previous write of size 8 by thread #1 ==166897== Locks held: none ==166897== at 0x400B1C0: _dl_lookup_symbol_x (dl-lookup.c:824) ==166897== by 0x4010953: _dl_fixup (dl-runtime.c:95) ==166897== by 0x4012B27: _dl_runtime_resolve (dl-trampoline.S:62) ==166897== by 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF: ??? ==166897== Address 0x4030b10 is 2712 bytes inside data symbol "_rtld_local" ==166897== ==166897== ---------------------------------------------------------------- ==166897== ==166897== Thread #1: pthread_barrier_init: barrier is already initialised ==166897== at 0x4855184: pthread_barrier_init (hg_intercepts.c:1869) ==166897== by 0x120DD3: main (bar_bad.c:65) ==166897== ==166897== ---------------------------------------------------------------- ==166897== ==166897== Thread #1: pthread_barrier_init: threads are waiting at barrier ==166897== at 0x4855184: pthread_barrier_init (hg_intercepts.c:1869) ==166897== by 0x120DD3: main (bar_bad.c:65) ==166897== destroy a barrier that has waiting threads ==166897== ---------------------------------------------------------------- ==166897== ==166897== Thread #1: pthread_barrier_destroy: threads are waiting at barrier ==166897== at 0x4855444: pthread_barrier_destroy (hg_intercepts.c:1944) ==166897== by 0x120E5F: main (bar_bad.c:83) ==166897== ==166897== ---Thread-Announcement------------------------------------------ ==166897== ==166897== Thread #4 was created ==166897== at 0x4978F68: clone (clone.S:56) ==166897== by 0x490F27B: create_thread (pthread_create.c:295) ==166897== by 0x490FC47: pthread_create@@GLIBC_2.36 (pthread_create.c:828) ==166897== by 0x4853883: pthread_create_WRK (hg_intercepts.c:445) ==166897== by 0x4854B2F: pthread_create@* (hg_intercepts.c:478) ==166897== by 0x120E33: main (bar_bad.c:77) ==166897== ==166897== ---------------------------------------------------------------- ==166897== ==166897== Thread #4: pthread_barrier_wait: barrier is uninitialised ==166897== at 0x48552E8: pthread_barrier_wait (hg_intercepts.c:1910) ==166897== by 0x120C5B: sleep1 (bar_bad.c:23) ==166897== by 0x4853A5F: mythread_wrapper (hg_intercepts.c:406) ==166897== by 0x490F4CB: start_thread (pthread_create.c:442) ==166897== by 0x4978F8B: __thread_start (clone.S:87) ==166897== ==166897== ---------------------------------------------------------------- ==166897== ==166897== Lock at 0x4030A80 was first observed ==166897== at 0x4850BEC: mutex_lock_WRK (hg_intercepts.c:942) ==166897== by 0x4854F63: pthread_mutex_lock (hg_intercepts.c:958) ==166897== by 0x400CD17: _dl_open (dl-open.c:830) ==166897== by 0x49B311F: do_dlopen (dl-libc.c:95) ==166897== by 0x49B2D2B: _dl_catch_exception (dl-error-skeleton.c:208) ==166897== by 0x49B2DEF: _dl_catch_error (dl-error-skeleton.c:227) ==166897== by 0x49B3073: dlerror_run (dl-libc.c:45) ==166897== by 0x49B326F: __libc_dlopen_mode (dl-libc.c:162) ==166897== by 0x4978BD3: __libc_unwind_link_get (unwind-link.c:50) ==166897== by 0x490D783: pthread_cancel@@GLIBC_2.36 (pthread_cancel.c:99) ==166897== by 0x120E6B: main (bar_bad.c:85) ==166897== Address 0x4030a80 is 2568 bytes inside data symbol "_rtld_local" ==166897== ==166897== Lock at 0x4030AD0 was first observed ==166897== at 0x4850BEC: mutex_lock_WRK (hg_intercepts.c:942) ==166897== by 0x4854F63: pthread_mutex_lock (hg_intercepts.c:958) ==166897== by 0x40120C3: _dl_allocate_tls_init (dl-tls.c:539) ==166897== by 0x4910127: allocate_stack (allocatestack.c:428) ==166897== by 0x4910127: pthread_create@@GLIBC_2.36 (pthread_create.c:647) ==166897== by 0x4853883: pthread_create_WRK (hg_intercepts.c:445) ==166897== by 0x4854B2F: pthread_create@* (hg_intercepts.c:478) ==166897== by 0x120D9F: main (bar_bad.c:59) ==166897== Address 0x4030ad0 is 2648 bytes inside data symbol "_rtld_local" ==166897== ==166897== Possible data race during write of size 2 at 0x4032774 by thread #1 ==166897== Locks held: 2, at addresses 0x4030A80 0x4030AD0 ==166897== at 0x40040F8: _dl_map_object_deps (dl-deps.c:259) ==166897== by 0x400D23F: dl_open_worker_begin (dl-open.c:592) ==166897== by 0x49B2D2B: _dl_catch_exception (dl-error-skeleton.c:208) ==166897== by 0x400C917: dl_open_worker (dl-open.c:782) ==166897== by 0x49B2D2B: _dl_catch_exception (dl-error-skeleton.c:208) ==166897== by 0x400CD5B: _dl_open (dl-open.c:883) ==166897== by 0x49B311F: do_dlopen (dl-libc.c:95) ==166897== by 0x49B2D2B: _dl_catch_exception (dl-error-skeleton.c:208) ==166897== by 0x49B2DEF: _dl_catch_error (dl-error-skeleton.c:227) ==166897== by 0x49B3073: dlerror_run (dl-libc.c:45) ==166897== by 0x49B326F: __libc_dlopen_mode (dl-libc.c:162) ==166897== by 0x4978BD3: __libc_unwind_link_get (unwind-link.c:50) ==166897== ==166897== This conflicts with a previous read of size 2 by thread #4 ==166897== Locks held: none ==166897== at 0x400B274: _dl_lookup_symbol_x (dl-lookup.c:907) ==166897== by 0x4010953: _dl_fixup (dl-runtime.c:95) ==166897== by 0x4012B27: _dl_runtime_resolve (dl-trampoline.S:62) ==166897== by 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF: ??? ==166897== Address 0x4032774 is in a rw- mapped file /usr/lib64/ld-linux-loongarch-lp64d.so.1 segment ==166897== ==166897== ---------------------------------------------------------------- ==166897== ==166897== Lock at 0x4030A80 was first observed ==166897== at 0x4850BEC: mutex_lock_WRK (hg_intercepts.c:942) ==166897== by 0x4854F63: pthread_mutex_lock (hg_intercepts.c:958) ==166897== by 0x400CD17: _dl_open (dl-open.c:830) ==166897== by 0x49B311F: do_dlopen (dl-libc.c:95) ==166897== by 0x49B2D2B: _dl_catch_exception (dl-error-skeleton.c:208) ==166897== by 0x49B2DEF: _dl_catch_error (dl-error-skeleton.c:227) ==166897== by 0x49B3073: dlerror_run (dl-libc.c:45) ==166897== by 0x49B326F: __libc_dlopen_mode (dl-libc.c:162) ==166897== by 0x4978BD3: __libc_unwind_link_get (unwind-link.c:50) ==166897== by 0x490D783: pthread_cancel@@GLIBC_2.36 (pthread_cancel.c:99) ==166897== by 0x120E6B: main (bar_bad.c:85) ==166897== Address 0x4030a80 is 2568 bytes inside data symbol "_rtld_local" ==166897== ==166897== Lock at 0x4030AD0 was first observed ==166897== at 0x4850BEC: mutex_lock_WRK (hg_intercepts.c:942) ==166897== by 0x4854F63: pthread_mutex_lock (hg_intercepts.c:958) ==166897== by 0x40120C3: _dl_allocate_tls_init (dl-tls.c:539) ==166897== by 0x4910127: allocate_stack (allocatestack.c:428) ==166897== by 0x4910127: pthread_create@@GLIBC_2.36 (pthread_create.c:647) ==166897== by 0x4853883: pthread_create_WRK (hg_intercepts.c:445) ==166897== by 0x4854B2F: pthread_create@* (hg_intercepts.c:478) ==166897== by 0x120D9F: main (bar_bad.c:59) ==166897== Address 0x4030ad0 is 2648 bytes inside data symbol "_rtld_local" ==166897== ==166897== Possible data race during read of size 8 at 0x4030B10 by thread #1 ==166897== Locks held: 2, at addresses 0x4030A80 0x4030AD0 ==166897== at 0x400B1A4: _dl_lookup_symbol_x (dl-lookup.c:824) ==166897== by 0x400F6BB: elf_machine_rela (dl-machine.h:186) ==166897== by 0x400F6BB: elf_dynamic_do_Rela (do-rel.h:147) ==166897== by 0x400F6BB: _dl_relocate_object (dl-reloc.c:288) ==166897== by 0x400D373: dl_open_worker_begin (dl-open.c:702) ==166897== by 0x49B2D2B: _dl_catch_exception (dl-error-skeleton.c:208) ==166897== by 0x400C917: dl_open_worker (dl-open.c:782) ==166897== by 0x49B2D2B: _dl_catch_exception (dl-error-skeleton.c:208) ==166897== by 0x400CD5B: _dl_open (dl-open.c:883) ==166897== by 0x49B311F: do_dlopen (dl-libc.c:95) ==166897== by 0x49B2D2B: _dl_catch_exception (dl-error-skeleton.c:208) ==166897== by 0x49B2DEF: _dl_catch_error (dl-error-skeleton.c:227) ==166897== by 0x49B3073: dlerror_run (dl-libc.c:45) ==166897== by 0x49B326F: __libc_dlopen_mode (dl-libc.c:162) ==166897== ==166897== This conflicts with a previous write of size 8 by thread #4 ==166897== Locks held: none ==166897== at 0x400B1C0: _dl_lookup_symbol_x (dl-lookup.c:824) ==166897== by 0x4010953: _dl_fixup (dl-runtime.c:95) ==166897== by 0x4012B27: _dl_runtime_resolve (dl-trampoline.S:62) ==166897== by 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF: ??? ==166897== Address 0x4030b10 is 2712 bytes inside data symbol "_rtld_local" ==166897== ==166897== ---------------------------------------------------------------- ==166897== ==166897== Lock at 0x4030A80 was first observed ==166897== at 0x4850BEC: mutex_lock_WRK (hg_intercepts.c:942) ==166897== by 0x4854F63: pthread_mutex_lock (hg_intercepts.c:958) ==166897== by 0x400CD17: _dl_open (dl-open.c:830) ==166897== by 0x49B311F: do_dlopen (dl-libc.c:95) ==166897== by 0x49B2D2B: _dl_catch_exception (dl-error-skeleton.c:208) ==166897== by 0x49B2DEF: _dl_catch_error (dl-error-skeleton.c:227) ==166897== by 0x49B3073: dlerror_run (dl-libc.c:45) ==166897== by 0x49B326F: __libc_dlopen_mode (dl-libc.c:162) ==166897== by 0x4978BD3: __libc_unwind_link_get (unwind-link.c:50) ==166897== by 0x490D783: pthread_cancel@@GLIBC_2.36 (pthread_cancel.c:99) ==166897== by 0x120E6B: main (bar_bad.c:85) ==166897== Address 0x4030a80 is 2568 bytes inside data symbol "_rtld_local" ==166897== ==166897== Lock at 0x4030AD0 was first observed ==166897== at 0x4850BEC: mutex_lock_WRK (hg_intercepts.c:942) ==166897== by 0x4854F63: pthread_mutex_lock (hg_intercepts.c:958) ==166897== by 0x40120C3: _dl_allocate_tls_init (dl-tls.c:539) ==166897== by 0x4910127: allocate_stack (allocatestack.c:428) ==166897== by 0x4910127: pthread_create@@GLIBC_2.36 (pthread_create.c:647) ==166897== by 0x4853883: pthread_create_WRK (hg_intercepts.c:445) ==166897== by 0x4854B2F: pthread_create@* (hg_intercepts.c:478) ==166897== by 0x120D9F: main (bar_bad.c:59) ==166897== Address 0x4030ad0 is 2648 bytes inside data symbol "_rtld_local" ==166897== ==166897== Possible data race during write of size 8 at 0x4030B10 by thread #1 ==166897== Locks held: 2, at addresses 0x4030A80 0x4030AD0 ==166897== at 0x400B1C0: _dl_lookup_symbol_x (dl-lookup.c:824) ==166897== by 0x400F6BB: elf_machine_rela (dl-machine.h:186) ==166897== by 0x400F6BB: elf_dynamic_do_Rela (do-rel.h:147) ==166897== by 0x400F6BB: _dl_relocate_object (dl-reloc.c:288) ==166897== by 0x400D373: dl_open_worker_begin (dl-open.c:702) ==166897== by 0x49B2D2B: _dl_catch_exception (dl-error-skeleton.c:208) ==166897== by 0x400C917: dl_open_worker (dl-open.c:782) ==166897== by 0x49B2D2B: _dl_catch_exception (dl-error-skeleton.c:208) ==166897== by 0x400CD5B: _dl_open (dl-open.c:883) ==166897== by 0x49B311F: do_dlopen (dl-libc.c:95) ==166897== by 0x49B2D2B: _dl_catch_exception (dl-error-skeleton.c:208) ==166897== by 0x49B2DEF: _dl_catch_error (dl-error-skeleton.c:227) ==166897== by 0x49B3073: dlerror_run (dl-libc.c:45) ==166897== by 0x49B326F: __libc_dlopen_mode (dl-libc.c:162) ==166897== ==166897== This conflicts with a previous write of size 8 by thread #4 ==166897== Locks held: none ==166897== at 0x400B1C0: _dl_lookup_symbol_x (dl-lookup.c:824) ==166897== by 0x4010953: _dl_fixup (dl-runtime.c:95) ==166897== by 0x4012B27: _dl_runtime_resolve (dl-trampoline.S:62) ==166897== by 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF: ??? ==166897== Address 0x4030b10 is 2712 bytes inside data symbol "_rtld_local" ==166897== ==166897== ---------------------------------------------------------------- ==166897== ==166897== Possible data race during read of size 8 at 0x4030B10 by thread #1 ==166897== Locks held: none ==166897== at 0x400B1A4: _dl_lookup_symbol_x (dl-lookup.c:824) ==166897== by 0x49B3177: do_dlsym (dl-libc.c:105) ==166897== by 0x49B2D2B: _dl_catch_exception (dl-error-skeleton.c:208) ==166897== by 0x49B2DEF: _dl_catch_error (dl-error-skeleton.c:227) ==166897== by 0x49B3073: dlerror_run (dl-libc.c:45) ==166897== by 0x49B32F7: __libc_dlsym (dl-libc.c:190) ==166897== by 0x4978BE7: __libc_unwind_link_get (unwind-link.c:59) ==166897== by 0x490D783: pthread_cancel@@GLIBC_2.36 (pthread_cancel.c:99) ==166897== by 0x120E6B: main (bar_bad.c:85) ==166897== ==166897== This conflicts with a previous write of size 8 by thread #4 ==166897== Locks held: none ==166897== at 0x400B1C0: _dl_lookup_symbol_x (dl-lookup.c:824) ==166897== by 0x4010953: _dl_fixup (dl-runtime.c:95) ==166897== by 0x4012B27: _dl_runtime_resolve (dl-trampoline.S:62) ==166897== by 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF: ??? ==166897== Address 0x4030b10 is 2712 bytes inside data symbol "_rtld_local" ==166897== ==166897== ---------------------------------------------------------------- ==166897== ==166897== Possible data race during write of size 8 at 0x4030B10 by thread #1 ==166897== Locks held: none ==166897== at 0x400B1C0: _dl_lookup_symbol_x (dl-lookup.c:824) ==166897== by 0x49B3177: do_dlsym (dl-libc.c:105) ==166897== by 0x49B2D2B: _dl_catch_exception (dl-error-skeleton.c:208) ==166897== by 0x49B2DEF: _dl_catch_error (dl-error-skeleton.c:227) ==166897== by 0x49B3073: dlerror_run (dl-libc.c:45) ==166897== by 0x49B32F7: __libc_dlsym (dl-libc.c:190) ==166897== by 0x4978BE7: __libc_unwind_link_get (unwind-link.c:59) ==166897== by 0x490D783: pthread_cancel@@GLIBC_2.36 (pthread_cancel.c:99) ==166897== by 0x120E6B: main (bar_bad.c:85) ==166897== ==166897== This conflicts with a previous write of size 8 by thread #4 ==166897== Locks held: none ==166897== at 0x400B1C0: _dl_lookup_symbol_x (dl-lookup.c:824) ==166897== by 0x4010953: _dl_fixup (dl-runtime.c:95) ==166897== by 0x4012B27: _dl_runtime_resolve (dl-trampoline.S:62) ==166897== by 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF: ??? ==166897== Address 0x4030b10 is 2712 bytes inside data symbol "_rtld_local" ==166897== destroy a barrier that was never initialised ==166897== ---------------------------------------------------------------- ==166897== ==166897== Thread #1: pthread_barrier_destroy: barrier was never initialised ==166897== at 0x4855444: pthread_barrier_destroy (hg_intercepts.c:1944) ==166897== by 0x120EFB: main (bar_bad.c:100) ==166897== ==166897== ---------------------------------------------------------------- ==166897== ==166897== Lock at 0x4030A80 was first observed ==166897== at 0x4850BEC: mutex_lock_WRK (hg_intercepts.c:942) ==166897== by 0x4854F63: pthread_mutex_lock (hg_intercepts.c:958) ==166897== by 0x400CD17: _dl_open (dl-open.c:830) ==166897== by 0x49B311F: do_dlopen (dl-libc.c:95) ==166897== by 0x49B2D2B: _dl_catch_exception (dl-error-skeleton.c:208) ==166897== by 0x49B2DEF: _dl_catch_error (dl-error-skeleton.c:227) ==166897== by 0x49B3073: dlerror_run (dl-libc.c:45) ==166897== by 0x49B326F: __libc_dlopen_mode (dl-libc.c:162) ==166897== by 0x4978BD3: __libc_unwind_link_get (unwind-link.c:50) ==166897== by 0x490D783: pthread_cancel@@GLIBC_2.36 (pthread_cancel.c:99) ==166897== by 0x120E6B: main (bar_bad.c:85) ==166897== Address 0x4030a80 is 2568 bytes inside data symbol "_rtld_local" ==166897== ==166897== Possible data race during write of size 2 at 0x4032774 by thread #1 ==166897== Locks held: 1, at address 0x4030A80 ==166897== at 0x4011470: _dl_sort_maps_dfs (dl-sort-maps.c:188) ==166897== by 0x4011470: _dl_sort_maps (dl-sort-maps.c:301) ==166897== by 0x4006133: _dl_fini (dl-fini.c:99) ==166897== by 0x48CDF63: __run_exit_handlers (exit.c:113) ==166897== by 0x48CE0D7: exit (exit.c:143) ==166897== by 0x120F2B: main (bar_bad.c:110) ==166897== ==166897== This conflicts with a previous read of size 2 by thread #4 ==166897== Locks held: none ==166897== at 0x400B274: _dl_lookup_symbol_x (dl-lookup.c:907) ==166897== by 0x4010953: _dl_fixup (dl-runtime.c:95) ==166897== by 0x4012B27: _dl_runtime_resolve (dl-trampoline.S:62) ==166897== by 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF: ??? ==166897== Address 0x4032774 is in a rw- mapped file /usr/lib64/ld-linux-loongarch-lp64d.so.1 segment ==166897== ==166897== ---------------------------------------------------------------- ==166897== ==166897== Possible data race during write of size 2 at 0x4032774 by thread #1 ==166897== Locks held: none ==166897== at 0x4006178: _dl_fini (dl-fini.c:120) ==166897== by 0x48CDF63: __run_exit_handlers (exit.c:113) ==166897== by 0x48CE0D7: exit (exit.c:143) ==166897== by 0x120F2B: main (bar_bad.c:110) ==166897== ==166897== This conflicts with a previous read of size 2 by thread #4 ==166897== Locks held: none ==166897== at 0x400B274: _dl_lookup_symbol_x (dl-lookup.c:907) ==166897== by 0x4010953: _dl_fixup (dl-runtime.c:95) ==166897== by 0x4012B27: _dl_runtime_resolve (dl-trampoline.S:62) ==166897== by 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF: ??? ==166897== Address 0x4032774 is in a rw- mapped file /usr/lib64/ld-linux-loongarch-lp64d.so.1 segment ==166897== ==166897== ==166897== Use --history-level=approx or =none to gain increased speed, at ==166897== the cost of reduced accuracy of conflicting-access information ==166897== For lists of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -s ==166897== ERROR SUMMARY: 37 errors from 17 contexts (suppressed: 8 from 7) Thanks, Feiyang |