FYI, I've been seeing same memcpy src/dst overlap problem on our BG/P system. It seems to be happening in one of the first attributes ever written to the file, a tiny single 4 byte integer value'd attribute. The pointer for both src and dst is the same value.
I cannot find a way to re-produce on something 'small'. Mark On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 06:13, Quincey Koziol wrote: > Hi marc, > > On Aug 24, 2010, at 7:32 AM, Marc POINOT wrote: > > > Quincey Koziol wrote: > >> Your code looks reasonable. We've been working on valgrind issues > >> recently - can you check out the latest code from: > >> http://*svn.hdfgroup.uiuc.edu/hdf5/branches/hdf5_1_8/ > >> See if these recent changes help. > > > > Great, this removes all Valgrind weird messages I had on some hdf5 calls. > > Good! :-) > > > There's still one I'm investigating now (see below), only one test in my > > test suite > > raises this message, I'm trying to find out what's different in this test. > > > > ==24685== Syscall param write(buf) points to uninitialised byte(s) > > ==24685== at 0x3E5070B012: __write_nocancel (in > > /lib64/tls/libpthread-2.3.4.so) > > ==24685== by 0x4C589C4: H5FD_sec2_write (H5FDsec2.c:839) > > ==24685== by 0x4C4E603: H5FD_write (H5FDint.c:184) > > ==24685== by 0x4C32FC4: H5F_accum_write (H5Faccum.c:580) > > ==24685== by 0x4C34F7F: H5F_block_write (H5Fio.c:162) > > ==24685== by 0x4D2158F: H5O_flush (H5Ocache.c:486) > > ==24685== by 0x4BD765D: H5C_flush_single_entry (H5C.c:7606) > > ==24685== by 0x4BC9F84: H5C_flush_cache (H5C.c:1801) > > ==24685== by 0x4BA1EB6: H5AC_flush (H5AC.c:843) > > ==24685== by 0x4C2CA29: H5F_flush (H5F.c:1685) > > ==24685== by 0x4C2A044: H5F_dest (H5F.c:994) > > ==24685== by 0x4C2D2F3: H5F_try_close (H5F.c:1909) > > ==24685== Address 0x534713C is 6,852 bytes inside a block of size 8,192 > > alloc'd > > ==24685== at 0x4905E12: realloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:306) > > ==24685== by 0x4CFCA97: H5MM_realloc (H5MM.c:140) > > ==24685== by 0x4C320C2: H5F_accum_adjust (H5Faccum.c:335) > > ==24685== by 0x4C32558: H5F_accum_write (H5Faccum.c:416) > > ==24685== by 0x4C34F7F: H5F_block_write (H5Fio.c:162) > > ==24685== by 0x4D2158F: H5O_flush (H5Ocache.c:486) > > ==24685== by 0x4BD765D: H5C_flush_single_entry (H5C.c:7606) > > ==24685== by 0x4BCA036: H5C_flush_cache (H5C.c:1824) > > ==24685== by 0x4BA1EB6: H5AC_flush (H5AC.c:843) > > ==24685== by 0x4C2CA29: H5F_flush (H5F.c:1685) > > ==24685== by 0x4C2A044: H5F_dest (H5F.c:994) > > ==24685== by 0x4C2D2F3: H5F_try_close (H5F.c:1909) > > Well, I didn't say we were completely done yet. ;-) If you can get > this warning (which is most likely harmless) down to a simple program, I can > see about fixing it. > > Quincey > > > _______________________________________________ > Hdf-forum is for HDF software users discussion. > [email protected] > http://*mail.hdfgroup.org/mailman/listinfo/hdf-forum_hdfgroup.org -- Mark C. Miller, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ================!!LLNL BUSINESS ONLY!!================ [email protected] urgent: [email protected] T:8-6 (925)-423-5901 M/W/Th:7-12,2-7 (530)-753-8511 _______________________________________________ Hdf-forum is for HDF software users discussion. [email protected] http://mail.hdfgroup.org/mailman/listinfo/hdf-forum_hdfgroup.org
