> > I bet an assert(i < opt.jobs); at multi.c:148 would fail. > I'm not sure how this code is supposed to work, but work from there. > > Even, I'm not very aware of the code, but it does seem like the problem lies there. All the traces point to it.
It's funny how valgrind itself segfaulted, valgrind developers would > probably be interested in that. > The crash is expected. It's mentioned in their FAQ's that is Valgrind reports invalid reads or writes, there is a large chance that valgrind itself will crash in m_memcheck. So, unless Valgrind continues to crash after the errors are fixed, this is expected behaviour. > > Don't worry about the sendmsg() warning from libc (it's shoud have been > suppressed imho). > I am not really sure as to what causes this to come up and why it must be suppressed. I'll dig deeper when I have the time. -- Thanking You, Darshit Shah
