https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385409
--- Comment #47 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Vadim Barkov from comment #46)
> Since the issue is solved,
I don't consider it to be solved.
You didn't answer my questions in comment 44:
* what your implementation strategy is
* ab
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=397256
--- Comment #1 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Tabor Kelly from comment #0)
> Please let me know if there is any other information that I can provide.
Are you proficient with objdump -d? Can you figure out what the failing
instruct
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=397256
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Valgrind 3.13.0 fails with |valgrind arm32 front end
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385409
--- Comment #44 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Vadim Barkov from comment #43)
> What do you think about it?
Honestly, I do not understand. You need to explain much more clearly:
* what these instructions actually do
* what your implementat
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385409
--- Comment #36 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Vadim Barkov from comment #35)
> (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #30)
>
> Are you sure that VLL is the reason of the bug with strlen?
Exactly which bug are you referring to? If
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=391845
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsew...@acm.org
--- Comment #1 from Julian
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=391164
--- Comment #7 from Julian Seward ---
Carl, is this OK to close now?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=390871
--- Comment #5 from Julian Seward ---
Is this still valid, considering there's been at least one related
fix to the debuginfo reader recently?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=390866
--- Comment #2 from Julian Seward ---
You're right, it is ungrammatical. I wonder how many output-parsing
GUIs will break if we change this, though.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=390498
--- Comment #6 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to rrt from comment #5)
> I've filed https://github.com/termux/termux-packages/issues/2148
Hi! I fixed some debuginfo reading stuff for arm64-linux recently
(within the past month) so it might be wo
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=390175
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=389412
--- Comment #1 from Julian Seward ---
This may well have been fixed by recent commits to the debuginfo reader
(within the past month). Can you try again?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=388895
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=388847
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |UNMAINTAINED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=388740
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsew...@acm.org
--- Comment #1 from Julian
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=388706
--- Comment #2 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #1)
> This is DW_OP_GNU_implicit_pointer.
Mark, do we need to be concerned about this, still? I note it is
reported against 3.11.0.
--
You are receiving this mail beca
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=388174
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsew...@acm.org
--- Comment #3 from Julian
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385409
--- Comment #33 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Andreas Arnez from comment #23)
> Julian, is this OK now?
Considering comment 30, alas, no. Let's try and get the Memcheck problems
with this fixed first.
--
You are receiving this mail beca
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385409
--- Comment #32 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #30)
> Created attachment 114305 [details]
> Implement early exit in s390_vr_loadWithLength
>
> Updated patch. This seems to fix the VLL issue. Limited
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385409
--- Comment #31 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #29)
> Created attachment 114302 [details]
> Use guarded loads in the guest
>
> This patch changes the guest code to use guarded loads.
>
> However,
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385409
--- Comment #20 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Ivo Raisr from comment #19)
> (In reply to Andreas Arnez from comment #18)
>
> > Another suspicous construct is the type cast
> > (const s390x_vec_op_details_t*)
> > where
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=387410
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385707
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385386
--- Comment #2 from Julian Seward ---
I can't imagine how this failed. Can you still reproduce it?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385199
--- Comment #1 from Julian Seward ---
I'd guess this is because rpmbuild somehow inserted -mthumb as a flag.
I'd furthermore guess that if you built it "by hand" without specifying
any extra flags, you'd get something that worked
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385199
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385409
--- Comment #14 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Vadim Barkov from comment #13)
> I've made the union in s390x_dirtyhelper_vec_op volatile and the bug
> magically dissapeared.
>
> Fixed.
No. Just hidden.
More likely is that
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385409
--- Comment #11 from Julian Seward ---
Vadim, Andreas, please can you split this into two patches:
* one with all the tests
* one with the final bug-fixed implementation
so it's easier to review.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396839
--- Comment #2 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Vadim Barkov from comment #1)
> Since valgrind doesn't model exceptions for s390x there is not clear how to
> implement this intstructions.
To see how to implement exceptions, look at the PPC
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384442
--- Comment #4 from Julian Seward ---
There's a bunch of related hacks in the arm(32) and arm64 front
ends. Grep for "earlyWriteback" or some such. They are probably
related.
The fundamental problem though is that these insns sim
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384337
--- Comment #15 from Julian Seward ---
Ivo, can we close this? I assume that all of these improvements
have long since landed in the v3 allocator (and also, that we're
now shipping v3 by default!) But do let me know if I assume wrongly.
--
You
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384156
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384230
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||luke...@lukeshu.com
--- Comment #17 from
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=383602
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=383516
--- Comment #1 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to micael from comment #0)
> I compiled valgrind again by changing the || defined(VGP_ppc32_linux) to the
> elif statement in the VG_(getgroups) function. Therefore making valgrind use
> a 32
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=382980
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=382563
--- Comment #20 from Julian Seward ---
Petar, can this be closed now?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=382435
--- Comment #2 from Julian Seward ---
The message as it stands is really what I intended. If all heap blocks
are freed then it isn't possible to have any leaks, since there are no
blocks to leak. Hence the wording.
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=382230
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=382034
--- Comment #3 from Julian Seward ---
What is MUSL?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=381553
--- Comment #74 from Julian Seward ---
Ivo, just to say, thank you for doing all this reg-alloc work.
I know it was a lot of work. The results are good!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=381096
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=380193
--- Comment #4 from Julian Seward ---
This should just work on 64-bit x86. It won't get fixed on 32-bit though.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=380193
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385412
--- Comment #25 from Julian Seward ---
Landed, d44563c49e55f47016e23591f708c7aa57f7a098. Andreas, could
you please checkout and test, when convenient?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385412
--- Comment #24 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Vadim Barkov from comment #23)
> I've just reproduced the problem you get. I had tried to apply this patches
> with "--dry-run" and got the same error. But without "--dry-run&
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385412
--- Comment #22 from Julian Seward ---
Hmm, the first two patches apply without problem. But the third
one fails as follows. Vadim, can you please check they actually
apply to the trunk, for you, and if not, update them so they do?
Also please can
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385412
--- Comment #20 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Vadim Barkov from comment #19)
> (In reply to Julian Seward from comment #18)
> > I think this is equivalent:
Unfortunately I can't think of a way to clean this up without extending
th
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385412
--- Comment #18 from Julian Seward ---
I think this is equivalent:
// getReg(RegisterNumber n) returns the value of GPR number 'n'
// reg1 and reg2 are even
void ppno(RegisterNumber reg1, RegisterNumber reg2) {
switch(getReg(0)) {
case 0x0
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384727
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsew...@acm.org
--- Comment #4 from Julian
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385412
--- Comment #14 from Julian Seward ---
I looked at the patches. They all seem fine to me, except for one thing
I wasn't happy about: the use of the three dirty helpers to implement PPNO.
In particular I don't think
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=386945
--- Comment #21 from Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> ---
(In reply to Julian Seward from comment #16)
> Created attachment 111056 [details]
> WIP patch, as described in comment 15
I should comment that this patch will still report i
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=386945
--- Comment #20 from Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> ---
(In reply to Aaron Sawdey from comment #19)
> Yes, the branch on uninitialized data is intended
Thanks for the clarification.
Unfortunately, the analysis framework has the dee
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=386945
--- Comment #18 from Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> ---
(In reply to Aaron Sawdey from comment #17)
Aaron,
Thanks for the details. It's not clear though to me what the answer
to
(2) If so, am I correct to understand that the
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=386945
Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #108913|0 |1
is ob
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=386945
--- Comment #15 from Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> ---
I have a patch which I've been using for investigating this. It reduces the
noise level significantly, but doesn't remove it entirely. I'll post it in
a following comment. In the mean
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384930
--- Comment #20 from Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> ---
(In reply to jacobly.alt from comment #18)
> Created attachment 110697 [details]
> Test mem variants of instructions in test-amd64.
Is this a patch relative to the git trunk, or a rev
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384930
--- Comment #19 from Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> ---
Fix committed, 6ae2edea014669d8082747f0f268e9404e0fd296.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384930
--- Comment #17 from Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> ---
(In reply to Niels Möller from comment #15)
> But I've run the mini-gmp tests [..]
Good, thanks. That's good enough for me. I'll land the fix.
--
You are receiving this mail bec
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384930
--- Comment #16 from Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> ---
(In reply to jacobly.alt from comment #14)
> I added mem,reg and reg,mem tests to test-amd64 [..]
Great! Can you pls make the testcase diffs available?
--
You are receiving this mai
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384930
--- Comment #13 from Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> ---
(In reply to Niels Möller from comment #12)
git clone git://sourceware.org/git/valgrind.git trunk
cd trunk
./autogen.sh && ./configure --prefix=`pwd`/Inst && make -j8 &
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384930
--- Comment #11 from Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> ---
Niels, the patch below makes your reduced testcase run correctly.
Can you test it more widely on GMP and let me know if it is OK?
Then I'll land it.
$ git diff -U8
diff --git a/VE
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384930
--- Comment #10 from Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> ---
Argh. V doesn't actually write the computed result to the
destination register in the case where one of the sources is
a memory operand, for adox and adcx. Eg
adoxq 48(%rdi),%r12
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384930
--- Comment #9 from Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> ---
On further analysis and testing, all 3 insns -- adcx, adox and mulx --
appear to be correctly implemented. So now I'm even more mystified.
--
You are receiving this mail becaus
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=360415
--- Comment #20 from Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> ---
The implementation may be buggy. Details in bug 384930.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384930
--- Comment #7 from Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> ---
It seems likely to me, from looking at the implementation, that
V does not correctly preserve the OSZAP flags after ADCX, nor the
SZACP flags after ADOX. At least, that's my current theory
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384930
--- Comment #6 from Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> ---
Reproduced. Thank you very much to whoever reduced the testcase.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384631
Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Reso
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384633
--- Comment #10 from Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> ---
(In reply to Ivo Raisr from comment #9)
> Pushed as commit bd077baa71a40b60dcf0286b9fb89d803323fd93.
Thanks!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384633
--- Comment #8 from Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> ---
Ivo, thanks for the fix. Yes, if you are happy with it, please
do push it.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384633
Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #107830|0 |1
is ob
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=79362
--- Comment #79 from Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> ---
Pushed a followup fix at f8ae2f95d6d717aa6d3923635b9f6f87af9b7cf1.
This fixes a problem spotted by Matthias Schwarzott, in which dlopening
an object that was previously dlopened and then dl
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=79362
--- Comment #77 from Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> ---
Landed, with major reworking by PhilippeW.
cceed053ce876560b9a7512125dd93c7fa059778
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=387664
Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Reso
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385408
--- Comment #36 from Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> ---
Pushed as f1a49eeb427caf42e7af2da2b91198e55c6f33b2.
Thanks for working on this.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=386945
--- Comment #14 from Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> ---
Here's a program that computes the CR.{LT,GT,EQ} bits after "cmplw"
using just AND, OR, XOR, NOT, SUB, SHL and SHR. For "cmplw" (the
only case tested here so far), it
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385408
--- Comment #33 from Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> ---
(In reply to Vadim Barkov from comment #32)
> Created attachment 109653 [details]
> Initial vector support (chapter 21) (hope final)
Hi Vadim. Andreas and I tried to app
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=387664
--- Comment #5 from Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> ---
(In reply to Julian Seward from comment #4)
> memcheck/tests/vbit-test/vbit-test is now failing, because of the increased
> accuracy with which some IROps are now instrumen
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=383010
--- Comment #16 from Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> ---
(In reply to Tanya from comment #9)
> Created attachment 109005 [details]
> Nulgrind test for the serial vFMA instructions
>
> The "AVX-512_prototype_v3" patch changes
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=383010
--- Comment #15 from Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> ---
(In reply to Tanya from comment #8)
> Created attachment 109004 [details]
> Nulgrind test for the AVX-2 instructions on AVX-512 machine
>
> AVX-2 regression test based on the
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=383010
--- Comment #14 from Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> ---
(In reply to Tanya from comment #7)
> Created attachment 109002 [details]
> Nulgrind test for the AVX instructions on AVX-512 machine
>
> AVX regression test based on the exi
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=383010
--- Comment #13 from Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> ---
(In reply to Tanya from comment #6)
> Created attachment 109001 [details]
> Nulgrind test for the AVX-512 instructions
>
> The test is based on the existing Nulgrind AVX and
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=383010
--- Comment #12 from Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> ---
(In reply to Tanya from comment #5)
> Created attachment 109000 [details]
> Updated AVX-512 implementation prototype
This looks pretty good. I have a number of comments, many of the
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385408
--- Comment #29 from Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> ---
(In reply to Julian Seward from comment #28)
> Looks good to me. My only comment is below.
Duh! Here is is:
guest_s390_helpers.c, __inline__ directives
eg
static __inline__ voi
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385408
--- Comment #28 from Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> ---
(In reply to Vadim Barkov from comment #20)
> Created attachment 108826 [details]
> Initial vector support (chapter 21) (after review)
Looks good to me. My only comment is below.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=387712
--- Comment #3 from Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> ---
Created attachment 109333
--> https://bugs.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=109333=edit
Proposed fix
This fixes it for me. Mark, can you give it a spin?
--
You are receiving this mail bec
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=387664
--- Comment #4 from Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> ---
Tom, Carl, thanks for the perf measurements.
The main patch landed as commit e847cb5429927317023d8410c3c56952aa47fb08.
memcheck/tests/vbit-test/vbit-test is now failing, because of the inc
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=387766
--- Comment #6 from Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> ---
Verified .. gcc version 8.0.0 20171210 runs clean on x86_64 linux when
configured with --enable-valgrind-annotations, the trunk, and the
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=387664 patch,
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=383010
--- Comment #11 from Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> ---
Sorry for the delay. I will review in the coming week (11-15 Dec).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385408
--- Comment #24 from Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> ---
Sorry for the delay. I will review it in Monday.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385408
--- Comment #25 from Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> ---
*on* Monday, that is.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=387664
--- Comment #1 from Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> ---
Created attachment 109234
--> https://bugs.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=109234=edit
WIP patch. Tested on x86, amd64, arm32.
Needs testing on other platforms, user-level documentation,
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=387664
Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||c...@us.ibm.com
-
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=387664
Bug ID: 387664
Summary: Memcheck: make expensive-definedness-checks be the
default
Product: valgrind
Version: 3.14 SVN
Platform: unspecified
OS: All
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=386425
Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Reso
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=386945
--- Comment #11 from Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #10)
> For some reason I cannot CC Aaron Sawdey, who wrote the PPC strcmp patch:
I can't move this along without further input. Maybe Aaro
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=386945
--- Comment #9 from Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> ---
Misaligned loads as referred to in comment 8:
==63134== Invalid read of size 8
==63134==at 0xB163FE4: process_symtab (lto-plugin.c:905)
==63134==by 0xB
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=386945
--- Comment #8 from Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> ---
(In reply to Markus Trippelsdorf from comment #7)
> Thanks.
> The gcc crash is gone, but I still get lots of invalid read warnings.
>
> However the amount of errors is much lo
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=386945
Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #108906|0 |1
is ob
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=386945
Julian Seward <jsew...@acm.org> changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #108905|0 |1
is ob
401 - 500 of 891 matches
Mail list logo
