|
From: <sv...@va...> - 2008-04-27 22:34:11
|
Author: dirk
Date: 2008-04-27 23:34:16 +0100 (Sun, 27 Apr 2008)
New Revision: 7951
Log:
update suppression for glibc 2.8: the backtrace
points to ld-2.8.so here.. so just match for any
lib in /lib
Modified:
trunk/xfree-4.supp
Modified: trunk/xfree-4.supp
===================================================================
--- trunk/xfree-4.supp 2008-04-27 20:38:47 UTC (rev 7950)
+++ trunk/xfree-4.supp 2008-04-27 22:34:16 UTC (rev 7951)
@@ -136,7 +136,7 @@
struct with uninitialized paddings - libxcb
Memcheck:Param
writev(vector[...])
- obj:/lib*/libc-2.6*.so
+ obj:/lib*/*.so
obj:/usr/lib*/libxcb.so.1.0.0
obj:/usr/lib*/libxcb.so.1.0.0
fun:xcb_send_request
@@ -147,7 +147,7 @@
struct with uninitialized paddings - libxcb
Memcheck:Param
writev(vector[...])
- obj:/lib*/libc-2.6*.so
+ obj:/lib*/*.so
obj:/usr/lib*/libxcb.so.1.0.0
obj:/usr/lib*/libxcb.so.1.0.0
obj:/usr/lib*/libxcb.so.1.0.0
|
|
From: Dirk M. <dm...@gm...> - 2008-04-28 13:52:34
|
On Monday 28 April 2008, sv...@va... wrote: > New Revision: 7951 > > Log: > update suppression for glibc 2.8: the backtrace > points to ld-2.8.so here.. so just match for any > lib in /lib I'd like to backport this and the other two commits related to glibc 2.8 support to 3.3 branch. any comments? Thanks, Dirk |
|
From: Bart V. A. <bar...@gm...> - 2008-04-28 14:16:02
|
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Dirk Mueller <dm...@gm...> wrote: > On Monday 28 April 2008, sv...@va... wrote: > > > New Revision: 7951 > > > > Log: > > update suppression for glibc 2.8: the backtrace > > points to ld-2.8.so here.. so just match for any > > lib in /lib > > I'd like to backport this and the other two commits related to glibc 2.8 > support to 3.3 branch. any comments? How about timerfd_create()/timerfd_gettime()/timerfd_settime() support ? Isn't it about time for a 3.3.1 release ? The 3.3.0 release dates from four months ago, and several bugs have been fixed since then. Bart. |
|
From: Julian S. <js...@ac...> - 2008-04-28 15:18:05
|
On Monday 28 April 2008 15:51, Dirk Mueller wrote: > On Monday 28 April 2008, sv...@va... wrote: > > New Revision: 7951 > > > > Log: > > update suppression for glibc 2.8: the backtrace > > points to ld-2.8.so here.. so just match for any > > lib in /lib > > I'd like to backport this and the other two commits related to glibc 2.8 > support to 3.3 branch. any comments? Sounds fine to me. btw, I hope to have some time next week to fix bugs and push the 3.3 branch along a bit. J |
|
From: Bart V. A. <bar...@gm...> - 2008-04-28 16:07:32
|
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Dirk Mueller <dm...@gm...> wrote: > On Monday 28 April 2008, sv...@va... wrote: > > > New Revision: 7951 > > > > Log: > > update suppression for glibc 2.8: the backtrace > > points to ld-2.8.so here.. so just match for any > > lib in /lib > > I'd like to backport this and the other two commits related to glibc 2.8 > support to 3.3 branch. any comments? Since the release of version 3.3.0 a lot of work has been done on exp-drd. The exp-drd tool has been transformed from a toy to a usable tool. Anyone any objections against merging the current trunk version of exp-drd to the 3.3.0 branch ? Bart. |
|
From: Julian S. <js...@ac...> - 2008-04-29 06:18:08
|
On Monday 28 April 2008 18:07, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Dirk Mueller <dm...@gm...> wrote: > > On Monday 28 April 2008, sv...@va... wrote: > > > New Revision: 7951 > > > > > > Log: > > > update suppression for glibc 2.8: the backtrace > > > points to ld-2.8.so here.. so just match for any > > > lib in /lib > > > > I'd like to backport this and the other two commits related to glibc 2.8 > > support to 3.3 branch. any comments? > > Since the release of version 3.3.0 a lot of work has been done on > exp-drd. The exp-drd tool has been transformed from a toy to a usable > tool. Anyone any objections against merging the current trunk version > of exp-drd to the 3.3.0 branch ? Generally the purpose of the stable branch is to maximise stability rather than to bring new functionality. Supposing the trunk exp-drd did get merged. What changes would be required outside of exp-drd, that is, in the rest of the system? J |
|
From: Bart V. A. <bar...@gm...> - 2008-04-29 17:25:14
|
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 8:12 AM, Julian Seward <js...@ac...> wrote: > > On Monday 28 April 2008 18:07, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > Since the release of version 3.3.0 a lot of work has been done on > > exp-drd. The exp-drd tool has been transformed from a toy to a usable > > tool. Anyone any objections against merging the current trunk version > > of exp-drd to the 3.3.0 branch ? > > Generally the purpose of the stable branch is to maximise stability > rather than to bring new functionality. > > Supposing the trunk exp-drd did get merged. What changes would be > required outside of exp-drd, that is, in the rest of the system? I ran a diff between the coregrind directories on the 3.3 branch and on the trunk. If I didn't miss anything, these are the core changes I'd like to see merged from the trunk to the 3.3 branch: * Addition of the function VG_(thread_get_stack_size)(ThreadId tid). * coregrind/m_libcprint.c changes that make sure that lines printed by different threads are not mixed up. What will happen with the new debuginfo reader that is present on the trunk ? If it's not merged to the 3.3 branch, I can backport the current version of exp-drd such that it works again with the previous functions for converting addresses into names. Bart. |