Hi, guys! As you might know there has been work going on in the FreeBSD community to port Valgrind to FreeBSD OS. Currently thanks to efforts of a lot of developers we have a working preliminary port done. Althought a lot of work has to be done yet, it is in a good shape now and fairly usable on both amd64 and i386 platforms. I'd love to work with someone from the community on integrating our patches to the main tree to avoid excessive merge conflicts in the future. There have been a lot of changes so that work will require a good amount of time and coordination. Is it possible? How do we proceed? Let me know your thoughts. Thanks! -- Stanislav Sedov ST4096-RIPE |
On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 22:22:25 +0400 Stanislav Sedov <stas@FreeBSD.org> mentioned: > Hi, guys! > > As you might know there has been work going on in the FreeBSD > community to port Valgrind to FreeBSD OS. Currently thanks to > efforts of a lot of developers we have a working preliminary > port done. Althought a lot of work has to be done yet, it is > in a good shape now and fairly usable on both amd64 and i386 > platforms. > > I'd love to work with someone from the community on integrating > our patches to the main tree to avoid excessive merge conflicts > in the future. There have been a lot of changes so that work > will require a good amount of time and coordination. > > Is it possible? How do we proceed? > > Let me know your thoughts. > So, is anyone interested? Where I should submit patches to? -- Stanislav Sedov ST4096-RIPE |
|
From: Nicholas N. <n.n...@gm...> - 2009-09-11 12:06:48
|
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Stanislav Sedov <st...@fr...> wrote: > On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 22:22:25 +0400 > Stanislav Sedov <stas@FreeBSD.org> mentioned: > >> Hi, guys! >> >> As you might know there has been work going on in the FreeBSD >> community to port Valgrind to FreeBSD OS. Currently thanks to >> efforts of a lot of developers we have a working preliminary >> port done. Althought a lot of work has to be done yet, it is >> in a good shape now and fairly usable on both amd64 and i386 >> platforms. >> >> I'd love to work with someone from the community on integrating >> our patches to the main tree to avoid excessive merge conflicts >> in the future. There have been a lot of changes so that work >> will require a good amount of time and coordination. >> >> Is it possible? How do we proceed? >> >> Let me know your thoughts. >> > > So, is anyone interested? Where I should submit patches to? http://www.valgrind.org/info/platforms.html gives our general view on ports. In short, Valgrind ports are, as you say, a great deal of work. The recent Darwin port represented years of work. And the audience for a *BSD port is greatly smaller than Darwin. So the cost/benefit ratio doesn't look very good. Nick |
|
From: Ed M. <em...@fr...> - 2010-03-05 13:42:01
|
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:06:38PM +1000, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Stanislav Sedov <st...@fr...> wrote: > > On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 22:22:25 +0400 > > Stanislav Sedov <stas@FreeBSD.org> mentioned: > > > >> Hi, guys! > >> > >> As you might know there has been work going on in the FreeBSD > >> community to port Valgrind to FreeBSD OS. ?Currently thanks to > >> efforts of a lot of developers we have a working preliminary > >> port done. ?Althought a lot of work has to be done yet, it is > >> in a good shape now and fairly usable on both amd64 and i386 > >> platforms. > >> > >> I'd love to work with someone from the community on integrating > >> our patches to the main tree to avoid excessive merge conflicts > >> in the future. ?There have been a lot of changes so that work > >> will require a good amount of time and coordination. > >> > >> Is it possible? ?How do we proceed? > >> > >> Let me know your thoughts. > >> > > > > So, is anyone interested? ?Where I should submit patches to? > > http://www.valgrind.org/info/platforms.html gives our general view on ports. > > In short, Valgrind ports are, as you say, a great deal of work. The > recent Darwin port represented years of work. And the audience for a > *BSD port is greatly smaller than Darwin. So the cost/benefit ratio > doesn't look very good. The patch is about 5800 lines of unified diff right now, and if I strip out build goo and trivial #ifdef change blocks about 4300 lines are left in the unidiff (~160 lines deleted and ~2200 added). The trivial #ifdef changes are cases where VGO_freebsd behaviour is identical to an existing case -- like the following: -#if defined(VGO_darwin) +#if defined(VGO_darwin) || defined(VGO_freebsd) I was actually surprised in going through this exercise that the change set is, relatively speaking, fairly small. The port's changes to Valgrind's internals are very limited. The port to FreeBSD is largely complete, relatively compact, and is not overly intrusive. There there are several active developers of the port. And there is certainly interest in the port - with 341 votes the bug containing the patch looks to be the highest-voted Valgrind issue. So I'd argue that the cost / benefit ratio is actually quite good. Regards, Ed Maste |
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:06:38 +1000 Nicholas Nethercote <n.n...@gm...> mentioned: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Stanislav Sedov <st...@fr...> wrote: > > On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 22:22:25 +0400 > > Stanislav Sedov <stas@FreeBSD.org> mentioned: > > > >> Hi, guys! > >> > >> As you might know there has been work going on in the FreeBSD > >> community to port Valgrind to FreeBSD OS. Currently thanks to > >> efforts of a lot of developers we have a working preliminary > >> port done. Althought a lot of work has to be done yet, it is > >> in a good shape now and fairly usable on both amd64 and i386 > >> platforms. > >> > >> I'd love to work with someone from the community on integrating > >> our patches to the main tree to avoid excessive merge conflicts > >> in the future. There have been a lot of changes so that work > >> will require a good amount of time and coordination. > >> > >> Is it possible? How do we proceed? > >> > >> Let me know your thoughts. > >> > > > > So, is anyone interested? Where I should submit patches to? > > http://www.valgrind.org/info/platforms.html gives our general view on ports.. > > In short, Valgrind ports are, as you say, a great deal of work. The > recent Darwin port represented years of work. And the audience for a > *BSD port is greatly smaller than Darwin. So the cost/benefit ratio > doesn't look very good. > Nicholas, as I outlined in the original email we have the perliminary port done. It is currently available in the FreeBSD ports collection, but supporting internal fork of valgrind project seems to me not the best way to go. There will be operational costs needed to integrate our patches into the three, but I don't think they will be *too* high. Target audience is questionable, but note that FreeBSD is heavily used as server OS where server applications get profiled and where darwin is not widely used. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks! -- Stanislav Sedov ST4096-RIPE |
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:46:39 +0400 Stanislav Sedov <stas@FreeBSD.org> mentioned: > On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:06:38 +1000 > Nicholas Nethercote <n.n...@gm...> mentioned: > > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Stanislav Sedov <st...@fr...> wrote: > > > On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 22:22:25 +0400 > > > Stanislav Sedov <stas@FreeBSD.org> mentioned: > > > > > >> Hi, guys! > > >> > > >> As you might know there has been work going on in the FreeBSD > > >> community to port Valgrind to FreeBSD OS. Currently thanks to > > >> efforts of a lot of developers we have a working preliminary > > >> port done. Althought a lot of work has to be done yet, it is > > >> in a good shape now and fairly usable on both amd64 and i386 > > >> platforms. > > >> > > >> I'd love to work with someone from the community on integrating > > >> our patches to the main tree to avoid excessive merge conflicts > > >> in the future. There have been a lot of changes so that work > > >> will require a good amount of time and coordination. > > >> > > >> Is it possible? How do we proceed? > > >> > > >> Let me know your thoughts. > > >> > > > > > > So, is anyone interested? Where I should submit patches to? > > > > http://www.valgrind.org/info/platforms.html gives our general view on ports.. > > > > In short, Valgrind ports are, as you say, a great deal of work. The > > recent Darwin port represented years of work. And the audience for a > > *BSD port is greatly smaller than Darwin. So the cost/benefit ratio > > doesn't look very good. > > > > Nicholas, > as I outlined in the original email we have the perliminary port done. It > is currently available in the FreeBSD ports collection, but supporting internal > fork of valgrind project seems to me not the best way to go. > > There will be operational costs needed to integrate our patches into the three, > but I don't think they will be *too* high. Target audience is questionable, but > note that FreeBSD is heavily used as server OS where server applications get > profiled and where darwin is not widely used. > I uploaded the patch against revision 10776 here: http://www.SpringDaemons.com/stas/vg.diff (600 Kb) -- Stanislav Sedov ST4096-RIPE |
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 12:46:01 +0400 Stanislav Sedov <stas@FreeBSD.org> mentioned: > > > > I uploaded the patch against revision 10776 here: > http://www.SpringDaemons.com/stas/vg.diff (600 Kb) > Hello, guys! I fixed some recent bugs encountered and now valgrind passes all "memcheck" and "none" regression tests on FreeBSD. DRD and helgrind tools still need some work to be done. I also updated the patch to revision r10846 (3.5.0 release) and removed some bogus changed that went in previously. The patch is available here: http://www.SpringDaemons.com/stas/vg-r10846.diff Best regards, -- Stanislav Sedov ST4096-RIPE |
|
From: Rich C. <Ric...@me...> - 2009-09-25 15:13:11
|
Hi Stanislav, You'll want to open a bug at https://bugs.kde.org/ against valgrind and attach your patch so it can be tracked. Rich On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:39:24 +0400 Stanislav Sedov <stas@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 12:46:01 +0400 > Stanislav Sedov <stas@FreeBSD.org> mentioned: > > > > > > > > I uploaded the patch against revision 10776 here: > > http://www.SpringDaemons.com/stas/vg.diff (600 Kb) > > > > Hello, guys! > > I fixed some recent bugs encountered and now valgrind passes all > "memcheck" and "none" regression tests on FreeBSD. DRD and helgrind > tools still need some work to be done. I also updated the patch > to revision r10846 (3.5.0 release) and removed some bogus changed > that went in previously. > > The patch is available here: > http://www.SpringDaemons.com/stas/vg-r10846.diff > > Best regards, > -- > Stanislav Sedov > ST4096-RIPE -- Rich Coe ric...@me... Virtual Principle Engineer General Electric Healthcare Technologies Clinical Systems Engineering -- Compute Systems Team |
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:12:57 -0500 Rich Coe <Ric...@me...> mentioned: > Hi Stanislav, > > You'll want to open a bug at https://bugs.kde.org/ against valgrind > and attach your patch so it can be tracked. Thank you for suggestion! I submitted it as bugid 208531: http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=208531 -- Stanislav Sedov ST4096-RIPE |
|
From: Ed M. <em...@fr...> - 2011-07-12 02:38:23
|
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 08:24:22PM +0400, Stanislav Sedov wrote: > On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:12:57 -0500 > Rich Coe <Ric...@me...> mentioned: > > > Hi Stanislav, > > > > You'll want to open a bug at https://bugs.kde.org/ against valgrind > > and attach your patch so it can be tracked. > > Thank you for suggestion! I submitted it as bugid 208531: > http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=208531 This but report has been open for coming up on two years. Is anyone from the Valgrind developer community willing to work with us to get the FreeBSD patches into the tree? Thanks Ed |