https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=409934
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsew...@acm.org
--- Comment #1 from Julian
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=409678
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|improvement suggestion for |DHAT: make it able to
|dhat
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=409646
--- Comment #2 from Julian Seward ---
I should add: fixing this is trivial (it's a 1-liner). But I don't
want to land the fix without at least someone having tested it. And
I don't have a way to test it.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=409646
--- Comment #1 from Julian Seward ---
Find the 1Uto64 case in host_arm64_isel.c and make 1Uto32 do the
same thing. That should fix it. Then send us the patch :-)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=409501
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REPORTED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=409429
--- Comment #2 from Julian Seward ---
I think I fixed this on the 'grail' (noise-reduction) branch, but it
has not yet been merged to trunk. That will happen before the next
release. The commit is:
commit 96de5118f5332ae145912ebe91b8fa143df74b8d
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=409391
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||assad.has...@linaro.org
--
You are receiving
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=408858
--- Comment #1 from Julian Seward ---
Do you have a patch that fixes this, or any test cases?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=407904
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REPORTED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=415516
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mips3...@gmail.com
--
You are receiving
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=415293
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||josef.weidendor...@gmx.de
--
You
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=415159
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REPORTED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=413634
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REPORTED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=414270
Bug 414270 depends on bug 413634, which changed state.
Bug 413634 Summary: ARMv8.1 arithmetic instructions are not supported
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=413634
What|Removed |Added
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=415136
--- Comment #2 from Julian Seward ---
Thanks for the patch. I looked at it in some detail.
An administrative request: please could you attach the test changes as a
separate patch? With it all in one patch, I have to scroll through the entire
giant
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=414659
--- Comment #9 from Julian Seward ---
Hmm, IRETQ got fixed recently, bug 400538, exactly for the purposes
of running Wine in 64-bit mode. It's in the trunk:
git clone git://sourceware.org/git/valgrind.git
But maybe I misunderstand?
--
You
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=369509
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REPORTED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=414270
Bug 414270 depends on bug 369509, which changed state.
Bug 369509 Summary: ARMv8.1-a LSE instructions are not supported
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=369509
What|Removed |Added
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=369509
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||414270
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugs.kde.org
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=413634
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||414270
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugs.kde.org
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=414268
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||414270
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugs.kde.org
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=413547
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||414270
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugs.kde.org
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=414270
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||369509, 413634, 414268
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=369509
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #123930|0 |1
is obsolete
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=369509
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #123537|0 |1
is obsolete
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=414291
--- Comment #2 from Julian Seward ---
It should be fixed now. Per, can you try again?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=369509
--- Comment #6 from Julian Seward ---
> > My only big concern here is the lack of hwcaps support in Vex/Valgrind.
> > That could be done in a followup bug, but it needs to happen fairly
> > soon.
>
> Sorry, I'm not clear about t
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=369509
--- Comment #4 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to ahashmi from comment #3)
I'll reply about the hwcaps a bit later.
Regarding CasCmpNE64: the underlying problem is like this. If the
location is not contended (which is almost always the case
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=369509
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsew...@acm.org
--- Comment #2 from Julian
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=411134
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #122275|0 |1
is obsolete
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=400538
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REPORTED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=350228
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REOPENED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=409678
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||n.netherc...@gmail.com
--
You are receiving
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=409141
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsew...@acm.org
--- Comment #12 from Julian
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=400538
--- Comment #9 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Daniel Lehman from comment #8)
> Created attachment 119759 [details]
> iretq implementation
>
> updated version of the iretq implementation i included in the tarball in
> https
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404406
--- Comment #5 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Andreas Arnez from comment #4)
> (In reply to Ilya Leoshkevich from comment #3)
Andreas, Ilya, thanks for the fixes.
regarding this:
--- a/VEX/priv/host_s390_isel.c
+++ b/VEX/priv/host_s390_ise
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=353370
--- Comment #27 from Julian Seward ---
That doesn't invalidate Tom's comment though: you should always test
with CPUID at run time for the presence of any particular instruction
set extension, before using it. Especially for recent or obscure
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=353370
--- Comment #26 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Tom Hughes from comment #25)
> So actually there is a later commit which does actually implement RDRAND but
> only for AVX2 capable CPUs which yours is not.
I think Mark just fixed it to work
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404406
--- Comment #2 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Andreas Arnez from comment #1)
> Patch #1: Adds the new machine models z14 and z14 ZR1.
> Patch #2: Cleans up s390-check-opcodes.pl, to fix false positives when
> checking s390-opcodes.csv.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=407340
--- Comment #4 from Julian Seward ---
Hi Carl,
These all look fine, as does the name of the new IROp. Please land.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=407340
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #119919|0 |1
is obsolete
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=406256
--- Comment #12 from Julian Seward ---
> Updated patch to fix issues with dnormal values v5 (27.44 KB, patch)
> 2019-05-15 21:27 UTC, Carl Love Details
> Update test case, add new test (1.81 MB, patch)
> 2019-05-15 21:28 UTC, Carl
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=406256
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #119920|0 |1
is obsolete
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=406256
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #119940|0 |1
is obsolete
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=406256
--- Comment #8 from Julian Seward ---
Thanks for the respin. I have mostly only minor comments about it. Is OK to
land provided all the comments below are addressed, except for the one about
vectorising negateVF32, which would be nice to fix if you
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=406674
--- Comment #4 from Julian Seward ---
This:
if (isU64(cc_op, AMD64G_CC_OP_SHRB) && isU64(cond, AMD64CondZ)) {
/* SHRL, then Z --> test dep1 == 0 */
return unop(Iop_1Uto64,
binop(Iop_CmpEQ8, uno
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=406674
--- Comment #3 from Julian Seward ---
"for shl ; je/jz", I meant.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=406674
--- Comment #2 from Julian Seward ---
Sigh. Looks like we need yet another spec rule, for this:
4005e2: c0 e0 04shl$0x4,%al
4005e5: 74 19 je 400600
I'll try to hack one up later, but if you
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=406578
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||n.netherc...@gmail.com
--
You are receiving
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=406465
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|arm64 instruction selector |arm64 instruction selector
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=406465
--- Comment #1 from Julian Seward ---
Created attachment 119373
--> https://bugs.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=119373=edit
Fix, I think
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=406465
Bug ID: 406465
Summary: arm64 instruction selector fails on GET:F16(..)
Product: valgrind
Version: 3.15 SVN
Platform: Other
OS: Linux
Status: REPORTED
Severity:
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=406355
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||philippe.waroquiers@skynet
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404843
--- Comment #9 from Julian Seward ---
Fixed, d36ea889d8d8a1646be85c30ab5771af6912b7a1.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404843
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REPORTED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404843
--- Comment #7 from Julian Seward ---
Thanks for the testing and review.
> + For s390, the unwound registers are: R11(FP) R14(LR) R15(SP) F0 F2 F4 …
> This doesn't match the current implementation, right?
That's correct. The comment is out o
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=401828
--- Comment #17 from Julian Seward ---
Looks good to me. Land!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404843
--- Comment #5 from Julian Seward ---
Created attachment 119229
--> https://bugs.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=119229=edit
Proposed fix
For s390x, adds unwinding of f0..f7, so as to be able the handle the case
where GPRs are saved in caller-saved
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=401828
--- Comment #15 from Julian Seward ---
Hmm, ignore my previous suggestion. What's evident from the
failure message is that
1. t13 is declared to be an I32
2. however, it is assigned an I64 value, as created by ReinterpF64asI64,
which is why
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=401828
--- Comment #14 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #13)
> > +t13 =
> > ReinterpF64asI64(RoundF64toF32(Xor32(t11,And32(Shl32(t11,0x:I8),0x...
> > .:I32)),DivF64(Xor32(t11,And32(Shl32(t11
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=401828
--- Comment #10 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Will Schmidt from comment #9)
> > (2) If (1) isn't the case, and instead, the test program produces different
> > results when run directly vs when run on V, then V is buggy.
>
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=401828
--- Comment #8 from Julian Seward ---
I'm confused about the top level diagnosis here. I see two possibilities:
(1) If the test program, when run directly (meaning, not on V) produces
different results depending on compiler version
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=405923
--- Comment #1 from Julian Seward ---
Hmm. That feels like "unsupported hardware". What SoC (chip)
is this?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=405782
--- Comment #12 from Julian Seward ---
Sorry to be slow getting to this, and thanks to Philippe for chasing it.
Yes .. it looks like the problem was caused by a very verbose translation
for the VPSHUFB instruction, applied to YMM registers
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=405295
--- Comment #5 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to zephyrus00jp from comment #3)
> Created attachment 119027 [details]
> Log from the failed valgrind run of mozilla thunderbird (segmentation error
> somewhere)
> --15408-- REDIR: 0x4d1264
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=403123
--- Comment #11 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Tom Hughes from comment #10)
> Well I didn't commit it because [..]
Oh! I wasn't aware of that. Land it; if there's borkage (which I would
find highly surprising), we can just back it out.
--
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404272
--- Comment #7 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Patrick J. LoPresti from comment #6)
It's no problem! I am just happy that I can cross this off my
list of stuff-to-be-fixed. If only all bugs were this easy to fix!
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=400538
--- Comment #1 from Julian Seward ---
0x48 0xCF is IRETQ (return from interrupt) and it segfaults when run
even natively (not on V) on my Fedora 29 box. So I'm kinda surprised
that you expect it to work when running on V. But maybe I misunderstand
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=400099
--- Comment #1 from Julian Seward ---
I can reproduce this. I'd guess it has to do with the machinery
that decides what area of stack it is safe to allow the unwinder
to visit.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=405403
--- Comment #2 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Andreas Arnez from comment #1)
Andreas, if you think the patch is OK, and won't cause regressions, then
fine, land it. It is however a huge patch and it would be nice to have
a few lines
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=405430
--- Comment #1 from Julian Seward ---
+1 for this; I am all in favour of more compile-time analysis.
As far as the guest_mips_toIR.c fallthrough goes, I'd guess it is
intended. I say this because it looks as if all 3 of
case 0xA: /* LX
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=399287
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REPORTED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=399287
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Illegal Instruction |amd64 front end: Illegal
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404272
--- Comment #5 from Julian Seward ---
I made a test case using the failing bytes you sent, as below, and
it runs ok with the trunk.
int main ( void )
{
// 66 0f 38 23 c0 pmovsxwd %xmm0,%xmm0
__asm__ __volatile__(".byte 0x66, 0xF,
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404272
--- Comment #4 from Julian Seward ---
I would add: given that you have failing bytes 0x66 0xF 0x38 0x23,
this is an SSE4 variant, not an AVX variant -- since there's no
C2/C3 (VEX) prefix present.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404272
--- Comment #3 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Patrick J. LoPresti from comment #2)
> Should I try to put together a test case?
Yes, please. I have had a look around and I am mystified. PMOVSXWD
appears to be both implemented and tested
(in n
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=399287
--- Comment #2 from Julian Seward ---
Well, I can reproduce this, and I see why it fails. The thing is,
I'm not sure why you'd want to generate this instruction in the
first place. It ignores its operands and returns "true" in each
lane (
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=398183
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REPORTED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=405182
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REPORTED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=405201
--- Comment #1 from Julian Seward ---
Do you have a patch to fix this?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404843
--- Comment #2 from Julian Seward ---
This is ungood; but that said: if the number of FP registers
involved is small and fixed (eg, it's only ever f0/f1/f2/f3 usw)
then we might be able to fix it within the existing unwind
framework, by adding
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404272
--- Comment #1 from Julian Seward ---
Wierd. I wonder why we don't support this, given that support for
AVX2 is generally available in V.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404069
--- Comment #1 from Julian Seward ---
Try removing -msse4.2 -mfpmath=sse -march=nehalem -mtune=sandybridge and
instead use run-time CPUID-based feature detection.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=403123
--- Comment #1 from Julian Seward ---
Is there any fix for this? The FreeBSD people give the impression
that V more-or-less works on FreeBSD, so I'm a bit surprised this fails
for you every time.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=402833
--- Comment #2 from Julian Seward ---
Is there any progress here? How important will it be to fix this for 3.15.0?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=402351
--- Comment #5 from Julian Seward ---
> t9 = ReinterpI64asF64(GET:I64(664))
> vex: priv/host_mips_isel.c:4915 (iselInt64Expr): Assertion `!env->mode64'
> failed.
Either (1) there is some 32-vs-64-bit guest-vs-host confusion
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=402123
--- Comment #3 from Julian Seward ---
Petar, any idea about this?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=402123
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mips3...@gmail.com
--
You are receiving
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=405295
--- Comment #1 from Julian Seward ---
Hi zephyrus00jp. Thanks for working on TB. I use it all the time.
Try removing --read-var-info=yes from the flags. I suspect that will
help. There's not much loss since Memcheck hardly uses that information
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=401828
--- Comment #3 from Julian Seward ---
The fact that it depends on the optimisation used to built the tests
is usually a sign that there's something broken in the inline assembly,
or maybe in this case, in the use of fixed registers. And so it just
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=401416
--- Comment #1 from Julian Seward ---
Do you mean that OpenMPI no longer supports MPI1 at all?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=401274
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Update required |Update required for OSX
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=400829
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsew...@acm.org
--- Comment #1 from Julian
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=400793
--- Comment #1 from Julian Seward ---
This happens because Helgrind on Linux doesn't intercept
pthread_rwlock_timedwrlock and so it doesn't know that the lock has
been taken. The strange thing is, the code to do the intercept
actually exists; it just
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=400783
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |NOT A BUG
Status|REPORTED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=400593
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Statx in Coregrind |In Coregrind, use statx
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=398883
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||c...@us.ibm.com
--- Comment #3 from Julian
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=399355
--- Comment #12 from Julian Seward ---
Nick, what's the situation here? Is it possible to make this work
well enough to be worth landing?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=399087
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|memcheck escape from user |/proc/self/exe is not
|code
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=398649
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsew...@acm.org
--- Comment #5 from Julian
201 - 300 of 891 matches
Mail list logo
