|
From: Tom S. <to...@pl...> - 2006-11-03 19:29:14
|
The valgrind-3.2.1 man page says this about --undef-value-errors:
--undef-value-errors=<yes|no> [default: yes]
Controls whether memcheck detects dangerous uses of undefined
value errors. When yes, Memcheck behaves like Addrcheck, a
lightweight memory-checking tool that used to be part of
Valgrind, which didn't detect undefined value errors. Use this
option if you don't like seeing undefined value errors.
I would think that --undef-value-errors=yes would cause memcheck to
detect undefined value errors, just based upon the name of the option.
But the man page implies that it is the other way around.
Also, the "Use this option if you don't like..." sentence is
ambiguous. Does it mean use "--undef-value-errors=yes" if you don't
like, or use "--undef-value-errors=no" if you don't like?
Does selecting yes or no affect the memcheck runtime? If so, maybe
the doc/manpage should mention that as well.
I would also suggest dropping the reference to Addrcheck, it doesn't
help new users at all.
--
Tom Schutter (mailto:to...@pl...)
Platte River Associates, Inc. (http://www.platte.com)
|
|
From: Nicholas N. <nj...@cs...> - 2006-11-03 20:09:16
|
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006, Tom Schutter wrote:
> The valgrind-3.2.1 man page says this about --undef-value-errors:
> --undef-value-errors=<yes|no> [default: yes]
> Controls whether memcheck detects dangerous uses of undefined
> value errors. When yes, Memcheck behaves like Addrcheck, a
> lightweight memory-checking tool that used to be part of
> Valgrind, which didn't detect undefined value errors. Use this
> option if you don't like seeing undefined value errors.
>
> I would think that --undef-value-errors=yes would cause memcheck to
> detect undefined value errors, just based upon the name of the option.
> But the man page implies that it is the other way around.
>
> Also, the "Use this option if you don't like..." sentence is
> ambiguous. Does it mean use "--undef-value-errors=yes" if you don't
> like, or use "--undef-value-errors=no" if you don't like?
>
> Does selecting yes or no affect the memcheck runtime? If so, maybe
> the doc/manpage should mention that as well.
>
> I would also suggest dropping the reference to Addrcheck, it doesn't
> help new users at all.
You're right, the description is backwards and confusing. Here's the new
one I just committed:
<para>Controls whether <constant>memcheck</constant> detects
dangerous uses of undefined value errors. Set this to
<varname>no</varname> if you don't like seeing undefined value
errors; it also has the side effect of speeding
<constant>memcheck</constant> up somewhat.
Nick
|
|
From: Tom S. <to...@pl...> - 2006-11-03 20:28:32
|
On Sat 06-11-04 06:56, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > On Fri, 3 Nov 2006, Tom Schutter wrote: > > > The valgrind-3.2.1 man page says this about --undef-value-errors: > > --undef-value-errors=<yes|no> [default: yes] > > Controls whether memcheck detects dangerous uses of undefined > > value errors. When yes, Memcheck behaves like Addrcheck, a > > lightweight memory-checking tool that used to be part of > > Valgrind, which didn't detect undefined value errors. Use this > > option if you don't like seeing undefined value errors. > > > > I would think that --undef-value-errors=yes would cause memcheck to > > detect undefined value errors, just based upon the name of the option. > > But the man page implies that it is the other way around. > > > > Also, the "Use this option if you don't like..." sentence is > > ambiguous. Does it mean use "--undef-value-errors=yes" if you don't > > like, or use "--undef-value-errors=no" if you don't like? > > > > Does selecting yes or no affect the memcheck runtime? If so, maybe > > the doc/manpage should mention that as well. > > > > I would also suggest dropping the reference to Addrcheck, it doesn't > > help new users at all. > > You're right, the description is backwards and confusing. Here's the new > one I just committed: > > <para>Controls whether <constant>memcheck</constant> detects > dangerous uses of undefined value errors. Set this to > <varname>no</varname> if you don't like seeing undefined value > errors; it also has the side effect of speeding > <constant>memcheck</constant> up somewhat. > > Nick Note that it also appears in the doc as well, see http://www.valgrind.org/docs/manual/mc-manual.html#mc-manual.flags -- Tom Schutter (mailto:to...@pl...) Platte River Associates, Inc. (http://www.platte.com) |
|
From: Nicholas N. <nj...@cs...> - 2006-11-03 21:53:36
|
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006, Tom Schutter wrote: >> You're right, the description is backwards and confusing. Here's the new >> one I just committed: >> >> <para>Controls whether <constant>memcheck</constant> detects >> dangerous uses of undefined value errors. Set this to >> <varname>no</varname> if you don't like seeing undefined value >> errors; it also has the side effect of speeding >> <constant>memcheck</constant> up somewhat. >> >> Nick > > Note that it also appears in the doc as well, see > http://www.valgrind.org/docs/manual/mc-manual.html#mc-manual.flags The man page contents are extracted from that file :) Nick |