i never performed a thorough "head-to-head" comparison between the two. valgrind has a few limitations - i didn't check if purify can overcome them or not. if it can - it could be a reason to use both of them. i think i did once check a program, that had a bug that valgrind didn't manage to identify, with pufiry, and it didn't report anything better then valgrind did for that case. this is of-course still not a good enough test.
on one occasion, there was an application that failed to run under purify on windows (it looked like some problem with purify - it's not that purify reported errors in the application) - and after it was ported to linux - valgrind managed to run it there. i know this is comparing apples to oranges plus it being anecdotal evidence,- but it was enough for me to get more assurance with valgrind's abilities.
--guy Elazar Leibovich wrote:
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 10:50 AM, guy keren <c...@actcom.co.il <mailto:c...@actcom.co.il>> wrote:Amos Shapira wrote: 2010/1/13 guy keren <c...@actcom.co.il <mailto:c...@actcom.co.il>>: if you are running on windows - you can use purify - it's a commercial tool, Why the condition of Windows? Purify is available for Linux as well. --Amos i meant (implied) that if he's using windows, he cannot use valgrind there - but instead he can use purify there. or the other way around - if he's using linux, he can use valgrind (depending on the CPU type, of-course) - so there's no need to use purify there.Are you saying that Purify has no (or very few) advantages over valgrind for linux from your experience with both? (I never used purify, so I don't really know).--guy _______________________________________________ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il <mailto:Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il> http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
_______________________________________________ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
