|
From: smiley g. <smi...@ya...> - 2004-02-13 23:40:21
|
Hello folks, There is no mention anywhere about valgrind's support for 64 bit applications and nor have I access to a 64 bit machine to check it out. However I need to know if valgrind supports 64 bit applications as its critical in deciding its use for our project quite soon. Thanks for any help. regards, smile. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html |
|
From: Thomas S. U. <sc...@ap...> - 2004-02-13 23:48:44
|
On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 15:38:14, smiley glitter spake thusly: > Hello folks, > > There is no mention anywhere about valgrind's support > for 64 bit applications and nor have I access to a 64 > bit machine to check it out. However I need to know if > valgrind supports 64 bit applications as its critical > in deciding its use for our project quite soon. We've had luck using the following boost libs for 64-bit targets on solaris: boost_thread boost_filesystem boost_datetime boost_regex HTH Scott |
|
From: Tom H. <th...@cy...> - 2004-02-14 00:04:19
|
In message <200...@ap...>
"Thomas S. Urban" <sc...@ap...> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 15:38:14, smiley glitter spake thusly:
>
> > There is no mention anywhere about valgrind's support
> > for 64 bit applications and nor have I access to a 64
> > bit machine to check it out. However I need to know if
> > valgrind supports 64 bit applications as its critical
> > in deciding its use for our project quite soon.
>
> We've had luck using the following boost libs for 64-bit targets on
> solaris:
> boost_thread
> boost_filesystem
> boost_datetime
> boost_regex
What exactly has that got to do with valgrind?
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (th...@cy...)
Software Engineer, Cyberscience Corporation
http://www.cyberscience.com/
|
|
From: Thomas S. U. <sc...@ap...> - 2004-02-14 00:50:13
|
On Sat, Feb 14, 2004 at 00:02:23, Tom Hughes spake thusly: > > > There is no mention anywhere about valgrind's support > > > for 64 bit applications and nor have I access to a 64 > > > bit machine to check it out. However I need to know if > > > valgrind supports 64 bit applications as its critical > > > in deciding its use for our project quite soon. > > We've had luck using the following boost libs for 64-bit targets on > > solaris: > > boost_thread > > boost_filesystem > > boost_datetime > > boost_regex > > What exactly has that got to do with valgrind? Wrong mailing, not enough sleep, too much caffiene. Not a damn thing, of course. Heh, sorry for the noise. |
|
From: Tom H. <th...@cy...> - 2004-02-14 00:06:35
|
In message <200...@we...>
smiley glitter <smi...@ya...> wrote:
> There is no mention anywhere about valgrind's support
> for 64 bit applications and nor have I access to a 64
> bit machine to check it out. However I need to know if
> valgrind supports 64 bit applications as its critical
> in deciding its use for our project quite soon.
There is no support for valgrinding 64 bit applications at present
although I believe it is possible to valgrind 32 bit applications
on AMD 64 machines. I haven't had a chance to try that yet though
as we've only had a suitable machine for a few days.
You didn't actually say what architecture you were talking about
anyway, but I'm assuming AMD as that's far more likely to happen
than anything else, including Itanium, at least in the short term.
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (th...@cy...)
Software Engineer, Cyberscience Corporation
http://www.cyberscience.com/
|
|
From: Andi K. <ak...@su...> - 2004-02-14 08:41:37
|
Tom Hughes <th...@cy...> writes: > In message <200...@we...> > smiley glitter <smi...@ya...> wrote: > > > There is no mention anywhere about valgrind's support > > for 64 bit applications and nor have I access to a 64 > > bit machine to check it out. However I need to know if > > valgrind supports 64 bit applications as its critical > > in deciding its use for our project quite soon. > > There is no support for valgrinding 64 bit applications at present > although I believe it is possible to valgrind 32 bit applications > on AMD 64 machines. I haven't had a chance to try that yet though > as we've only had a suitable machine for a few days. Actually it's not that easy to valgrind 32bit on 64bit. I have been working on that. The original 1.x valgrind worked pretty well in emulation, but with 2.x the problems started. First it didn't like the 4GB address space, but that can be worked around with linux32 --3gb. Then it triggered a few bugs in the 32bit emulation that I fixed (but you need a pretty recent 2.6 kernel for the fixes). Currently it usually works, but sometimes depending on timing (e.g. strace or not) it still runs into a segfault in the signal handling. I haven't tracked that down. 2.4.x I haven't tested. It has different signal code, so it may not have some of the 2.6 bugs. At least one of the bugs I fixed was definitely in 2.4 too. I also took a short look at porting it to native 64bit. As usual I think the most work would be to make the source 64bit clean (it seems to have a lot of 32bit assumptions). With that fixed adding real AMD64 support (REX prefixes, RIP relative addressing, extended registers, MOVABS) would be probably straight-forward. -Andi |
|
From: smiley g. <smi...@ya...> - 2004-02-17 08:32:32
|
Hello Andi, Tom, Thanks for the info. I am looking at IA64 architecture. Thanks again, Smile. --- Andi Kleen <ak...@su...> wrote: > Tom Hughes <th...@cy...> writes: > > > In message > <200...@we...> > > smiley glitter <smi...@ya...> > wrote: > > > > > There is no mention anywhere about valgrind's > support > > > for 64 bit applications and nor have I access to > a 64 > > > bit machine to check it out. However I need to > know if > > > valgrind supports 64 bit applications as its > critical > > > in deciding its use for our project quite soon. > > > > There is no support for valgrinding 64 bit > applications at present > > although I believe it is possible to valgrind 32 > bit applications > > on AMD 64 machines. I haven't had a chance to try > that yet though > > as we've only had a suitable machine for a few > days. > > Actually it's not that easy to valgrind 32bit on > 64bit. I have been > working on that. The original 1.x valgrind worked > pretty well in > emulation, but with 2.x the problems started. First > it didn't like > the 4GB address space, but that can be worked around > with linux32 --3gb. > > Then it triggered a few bugs in the 32bit emulation > that I fixed > (but you need a pretty recent 2.6 kernel for the > fixes). Currently > it usually works, but sometimes depending on timing > (e.g. strace > or not) it still runs into a segfault in the signal > handling. I haven't > tracked that down. > > 2.4.x I haven't tested. It has different signal > code, so it may not > have some of the 2.6 bugs. At least one of the bugs > I fixed was > definitely in 2.4 too. > > I also took a short look at porting it to native > 64bit. > As usual I think the most work would be to make the > source 64bit > clean (it seems to have a lot of 32bit assumptions). > With that > fixed adding real AMD64 support (REX prefixes, RIP > relative addressing, > extended registers, MOVABS) would be probably > straight-forward. > > -Andi __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html |
|
From: Nicholas N. <nj...@ca...> - 2004-02-17 08:58:12
|
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, smiley glitter wrote: > Thanks for the info. I am looking at IA64 > architecture. Ooh, that's not so good; IA64 looks like a total nightmare to port to. I doubt a Valgrind IA64 port will happen anytime soon. Sorry. N |
|
From: Tom H. <th...@cy...> - 2004-02-17 09:00:19
|
In message <200...@we...>
smiley glitter <smi...@ya...> wrote:
> Thanks for the info. I am looking at IA64
> architecture.
That's a completely different kettle of fish then, and would be a
pretty major undertaking.
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (th...@cy...)
Software Engineer, Cyberscience Corporation
http://www.cyberscience.com/
|
|
From: Tom H. <th...@cy...> - 2004-02-17 09:19:07
|
In message <Pin...@ye...>
Nicholas Nethercote <nj...@ca...> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, smiley glitter wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the info. I am looking at IA64
>> architecture.
>
> Ooh, that's not so good; IA64 looks like a total nightmare to port to.
> I doubt a Valgrind IA64 port will happen anytime soon. Sorry.
Especially if Intel torpedo IA64 this week as expected...
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (th...@cy...)
Software Engineer, Cyberscience Corporation
http://www.cyberscience.com/
|
|
From: Nicholas N. <nj...@ca...> - 2004-02-17 09:29:21
|
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Tom Hughes wrote: > Especially if Intel torpedo IA64 this week as expected... Really? I'd heard they have (will?) put x86-64 support in some chips, but I hadn't heard anything about them abandoning IA64 altogether -- wow. N |
|
From: Tom H. <th...@cy...> - 2004-02-17 09:58:21
|
In message <Pin...@ye...>
Nicholas Nethercote <nj...@ca...> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Tom Hughes wrote:
>
>> Especially if Intel torpedo IA64 this week as expected...
>
> Really? I'd heard they have (will?) put x86-64 support in some chips, but
> I hadn't heard anything about them abandoning IA64 altogether -- wow.
Oh I don't think they'll formally abandon it, but the effect is
likely to be much the same - that IA64 will become an evolutionary
dead end that is little used.
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (th...@cy...)
Software Engineer, Cyberscience Corporation
http://www.cyberscience.com/
|