You can subscribe to this list here.
| 2003 |
Jan
|
Feb
|
Mar
(58) |
Apr
(261) |
May
(169) |
Jun
(214) |
Jul
(201) |
Aug
(219) |
Sep
(198) |
Oct
(203) |
Nov
(241) |
Dec
(94) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 |
Jan
(137) |
Feb
(149) |
Mar
(150) |
Apr
(193) |
May
(95) |
Jun
(173) |
Jul
(137) |
Aug
(236) |
Sep
(157) |
Oct
(150) |
Nov
(136) |
Dec
(90) |
| 2005 |
Jan
(139) |
Feb
(130) |
Mar
(274) |
Apr
(138) |
May
(184) |
Jun
(152) |
Jul
(261) |
Aug
(409) |
Sep
(239) |
Oct
(241) |
Nov
(260) |
Dec
(137) |
| 2006 |
Jan
(191) |
Feb
(142) |
Mar
(169) |
Apr
(75) |
May
(141) |
Jun
(169) |
Jul
(131) |
Aug
(141) |
Sep
(192) |
Oct
(176) |
Nov
(142) |
Dec
(95) |
| 2007 |
Jan
(98) |
Feb
(120) |
Mar
(93) |
Apr
(96) |
May
(95) |
Jun
(65) |
Jul
(62) |
Aug
(56) |
Sep
(53) |
Oct
(95) |
Nov
(106) |
Dec
(87) |
| 2008 |
Jan
(58) |
Feb
(149) |
Mar
(175) |
Apr
(110) |
May
(106) |
Jun
(72) |
Jul
(55) |
Aug
(89) |
Sep
(26) |
Oct
(96) |
Nov
(83) |
Dec
(93) |
| 2009 |
Jan
(97) |
Feb
(106) |
Mar
(74) |
Apr
(64) |
May
(115) |
Jun
(83) |
Jul
(137) |
Aug
(103) |
Sep
(56) |
Oct
(59) |
Nov
(61) |
Dec
(37) |
| 2010 |
Jan
(94) |
Feb
(71) |
Mar
(53) |
Apr
(105) |
May
(79) |
Jun
(111) |
Jul
(110) |
Aug
(81) |
Sep
(50) |
Oct
(82) |
Nov
(49) |
Dec
(21) |
| 2011 |
Jan
(87) |
Feb
(105) |
Mar
(108) |
Apr
(99) |
May
(91) |
Jun
(94) |
Jul
(114) |
Aug
(77) |
Sep
(58) |
Oct
(58) |
Nov
(131) |
Dec
(62) |
| 2012 |
Jan
(76) |
Feb
(93) |
Mar
(68) |
Apr
(95) |
May
(62) |
Jun
(109) |
Jul
(90) |
Aug
(87) |
Sep
(49) |
Oct
(54) |
Nov
(66) |
Dec
(84) |
| 2013 |
Jan
(67) |
Feb
(52) |
Mar
(93) |
Apr
(65) |
May
(33) |
Jun
(34) |
Jul
(52) |
Aug
(42) |
Sep
(52) |
Oct
(48) |
Nov
(66) |
Dec
(14) |
| 2014 |
Jan
(66) |
Feb
(51) |
Mar
(34) |
Apr
(47) |
May
(58) |
Jun
(27) |
Jul
(52) |
Aug
(41) |
Sep
(78) |
Oct
(30) |
Nov
(28) |
Dec
(26) |
| 2015 |
Jan
(41) |
Feb
(42) |
Mar
(20) |
Apr
(73) |
May
(31) |
Jun
(48) |
Jul
(23) |
Aug
(55) |
Sep
(36) |
Oct
(47) |
Nov
(48) |
Dec
(41) |
| 2016 |
Jan
(32) |
Feb
(34) |
Mar
(33) |
Apr
(22) |
May
(14) |
Jun
(31) |
Jul
(29) |
Aug
(41) |
Sep
(17) |
Oct
(27) |
Nov
(38) |
Dec
(28) |
| 2017 |
Jan
(28) |
Feb
(30) |
Mar
(16) |
Apr
(9) |
May
(27) |
Jun
(57) |
Jul
(28) |
Aug
(43) |
Sep
(31) |
Oct
(20) |
Nov
(24) |
Dec
(18) |
| 2018 |
Jan
(34) |
Feb
(50) |
Mar
(18) |
Apr
(26) |
May
(13) |
Jun
(31) |
Jul
(13) |
Aug
(11) |
Sep
(15) |
Oct
(12) |
Nov
(18) |
Dec
(13) |
| 2019 |
Jan
(12) |
Feb
(29) |
Mar
(51) |
Apr
(22) |
May
(13) |
Jun
(20) |
Jul
(13) |
Aug
(12) |
Sep
(21) |
Oct
(6) |
Nov
(9) |
Dec
(5) |
| 2020 |
Jan
(13) |
Feb
(5) |
Mar
(25) |
Apr
(4) |
May
(40) |
Jun
(27) |
Jul
(5) |
Aug
(17) |
Sep
(21) |
Oct
(1) |
Nov
(5) |
Dec
(15) |
| 2021 |
Jan
(28) |
Feb
(6) |
Mar
(11) |
Apr
(5) |
May
(7) |
Jun
(8) |
Jul
(5) |
Aug
(5) |
Sep
(11) |
Oct
(9) |
Nov
(10) |
Dec
(12) |
| 2022 |
Jan
(7) |
Feb
(13) |
Mar
(8) |
Apr
(7) |
May
(12) |
Jun
(27) |
Jul
(14) |
Aug
(27) |
Sep
(27) |
Oct
(17) |
Nov
(17) |
Dec
|
| 2023 |
Jan
(10) |
Feb
(18) |
Mar
(9) |
Apr
(26) |
May
|
Jun
(13) |
Jul
(18) |
Aug
(5) |
Sep
|
Oct
|
Nov
|
Dec
|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
2
|
3
(1) |
4
|
5
(3) |
6
|
7
|
8
|
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
|
16
(1) |
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
|
From: Ben W. <ben...@co...> - 2020-02-05 23:40:03
|
I have never used cachegrind, but I’ve seen a similar message before when using memcheck. In my case, the problem was that I was using the wrong version of memcheck for my CPU type. For example, I think I was trying to run a 32-bit version of memcheck with a 64-bit executable. Ben From: Alexandre Azevedo <ale...@gm...> Sent: Wednesday, February 5, 2020 10:50 AM To: val...@li... Subject: [Valgrind-users] valgrind: Unrecognised instruction Hello guys, I'm currently trying to profile my program's cache behaviour using cachegrind. I can confirm the program seems to be working as I first tested cachegrind compiling my code with GCC. The problem is that I'm now using Intel C compiler and for some reason I keep getting the same error as I try to run it with cachegrind. Following is the error message. vex amd64->IR: unhandled instruction bytes: 0xF3 0xF 0x1E 0xFA 0x41 0x56 0x41 0x89 vex amd64->IR: REX=0 REX.W=0 REX.R=0 REX.X=0 REX.B=0 vex amd64->IR: VEX=0 VEX.L=0 VEX.nVVVV=0x0 ESC=0F vex amd64->IR: PFX.66=0 PFX.F2=0 PFX.F3=1 ==23029== valgrind: Unrecognised instruction at address 0x4032e0. ==23029== at 0x4032E0: __intel_new_feature_proc_init (in /home/arthur/Documentos/Prog.Paralela/intelseqkron) ==23029== by 0x565282F: (below main) (libc-start.c:291) ==23029== Your program just tried to execute an instruction that Valgrind ==23029== did not recognise. There are two possible reasons for this. ==23029== 1. Your program has a bug and erroneously jumped to a non-code ==23029== location. If you are running Memcheck and you just saw a ==23029== warning about a bad jump, it's probably your program's fault. ==23029== 2. The instruction is legitimate but Valgrind doesn't handle it, ==23029== i.e. it's Valgrind's fault. If you think this is the case or ==23029== you are not sure, please let us know and we'll try to fix it. ==23029== Either way, Valgrind will now raise a SIGILL signal which will ==23029== probably kill your program. ==23029== ==23029== Process terminating with default action of signal 4 (SIGILL) ==23029== Illegal opcode at address 0x4032E0 ==23029== at 0x4032E0: __intel_new_feature_proc_init (in /home/arthur/Documentos/Prog.Paralela/intelseqkron) ==23029== by 0x565282F: (below main) (libc-start.c:291) ==23029== My best regards, Alexandre |
|
From: John R. <jr...@bi...> - 2020-02-05 19:43:00
|
> vex amd64->IR: unhandled instruction bytes: 0xF3 0xF 0x1E 0xFA 0x41 0x56 0x41 0x89 Follow the Bug Reports link at http://valgrind.org to file a bug report at http://bugs.kde.org/query.cgi?format=specific . Please be sure to state the version of valgrind. Run "valgrind --version". The instruction 0xF3 0xF 0x1E 0xFA is 'endbr64'. > vex amd64->IR: REX=0 REX.W=0 REX.R=0 REX.X=0 REX.B=0 > vex amd64->IR: VEX=0 VEX.L=0 VEX.nVVVV=0x0 ESC=0F > vex amd64->IR: PFX.66=0 PFX.F2=0 PFX.F3=1 > ==23029== valgrind: Unrecognised instruction at address 0x4032e0. > ==23029== at 0x4032E0: __intel_new_feature_proc_init (in /home/arthur/Documentos/Prog.Paralela/intelseqkron) > ==23029== by 0x565282F: (below main) (libc-start.c:291) |
|
From: Alexandre A. <ale...@gm...> - 2020-02-05 18:52:58
|
Hello guys, I'm currently trying to profile my program's cache behaviour using cachegrind. I can confirm the program seems to be working as I first tested cachegrind compiling my code with GCC. The problem is that I'm now using Intel C compiler and for some reason I keep getting the same error as I try to run it with cachegrind. Following is the error message. vex amd64->IR: unhandled instruction bytes: 0xF3 0xF 0x1E 0xFA 0x41 0x56 0x41 0x89 vex amd64->IR: REX=0 REX.W=0 REX.R=0 REX.X=0 REX.B=0 vex amd64->IR: VEX=0 VEX.L=0 VEX.nVVVV=0x0 ESC=0F vex amd64->IR: PFX.66=0 PFX.F2=0 PFX.F3=1 ==23029== valgrind: Unrecognised instruction at address 0x4032e0. ==23029== at 0x4032E0: __intel_new_feature_proc_init (in /home/arthur/Documentos/Prog.Paralela/intelseqkron) ==23029== by 0x565282F: (below main) (libc-start.c:291) ==23029== Your program just tried to execute an instruction that Valgrind ==23029== did not recognise. There are two possible reasons for this. ==23029== 1. Your program has a bug and erroneously jumped to a non-code ==23029== location. If you are running Memcheck and you just saw a ==23029== warning about a bad jump, it's probably your program's fault. ==23029== 2. The instruction is legitimate but Valgrind doesn't handle it, ==23029== i.e. it's Valgrind's fault. If you think this is the case or ==23029== you are not sure, please let us know and we'll try to fix it. ==23029== Either way, Valgrind will now raise a SIGILL signal which will ==23029== probably kill your program. ==23029== ==23029== Process terminating with default action of signal 4 (SIGILL) ==23029== Illegal opcode at address 0x4032E0 ==23029== at 0x4032E0: __intel_new_feature_proc_init (in /home/arthur/Documentos/Prog.Paralela/intelseqkron) ==23029== by 0x565282F: (below main) (libc-start.c:291) ==23029== My best regards, Alexandre |