Quoting Jed Brown <jedbrown at mcs.anl.gov>: > On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 02:39, <Johannes.Huber at unibas.ch> wrote: > >> When I take a look to the valgrind output, I see a few lines about >> unaddressable bytes. Is this a reason to concern? >> > > Please paste lines for questions like this. > Here are the lines:
==22507== Unaddressable byte(s) found during client check request ==22507== at 0x4E34BFD: check_mem_is_defined_untyped (libmpiwrap.c:953) ==22507== by 0x4E499AA: walk_type (libmpiwrap.c:691) ==22507== by 0x4E4D7A3: PMPI_Allreduce (libmpiwrap.c:924) ==22507== by 0x74846D0: MPIR_Get_contextid (in /usr/lib/libmpich.so.1.2) ==22507== by 0x7484CF1: MPIR_Comm_copy (in /usr/lib/libmpich.so.1.2) ==22507== by 0x747D280: PMPI_Comm_dup (in /usr/lib/libmpich.so.1.2) ==22507== by 0x4E48C4A: PMPI_Comm_dup (libmpiwrap.c:2110) ==22507== by 0x586878D: PetscCommDuplicate (tagm.c:149) ==22507== by 0x54718AD: PetscHeaderCreate_Private (inherit.c:51) ==22507== by 0x5891130: VecCreate (veccreate.c:39) ==22507== by 0x400E3A: main (Test.C:10) ==22507== Address 0xffffffffffffffff is not stack'd, malloc'd or (recently) free'd and ==22508== Unaddressable byte(s) found during client check request ==22508== at 0x4E34BFD: check_mem_is_defined_untyped (libmpiwrap.c:953) ==22508== by 0x4E499AA: walk_type (libmpiwrap.c:691) ==22508== by 0x4E4D7A3: PMPI_Allreduce (libmpiwrap.c:924) ==22508== by 0x74846D0: MPIR_Get_contextid (in /usr/lib/libmpich.so.1.2) ==22508== by 0x7484CF1: MPIR_Comm_copy (in /usr/lib/libmpich.so.1.2) ==22508== by 0x747D280: PMPI_Comm_dup (in /usr/lib/libmpich.so.1.2) ==22508== by 0x4E48C4A: PMPI_Comm_dup (libmpiwrap.c:2110) ==22508== by 0x586878D: PetscCommDuplicate (tagm.c:149) ==22508== by 0x54718AD: PetscHeaderCreate_Private (inherit.c:51) ==22508== by 0x5891130: VecCreate (veccreate.c:39) ==22508== by 0x400E3A: main (Test.C:10) ==22508== Address 0xffffffffffffffff is not stack'd, malloc'd or (recently) free'd ==22508== --22508-- REDIR: 0x744f8c0 (PMPI_Attr_put) redirected to 0x4e46b46 (PMPI_Attr_put) ... --22508-- REDIR: 0x74df090 (PMPI_Recv) redirected to 0x4e4e4b4 (PMPI_Recv) ==22508== Uninitialised byte(s) found during client check request ==22508== at 0x4E49738: PMPI_Get_count (libmpiwrap.c:953) ==22508== by 0x4E4E704: PMPI_Recv (libmpiwrap.c:419) ==22508== by 0x56BE525: VecView_MPI_ASCII (pdvec.c:78) ==22508== by 0x56C1BDA: VecView_MPI (pdvec.c:837) ==22508== by 0x58A9C9D: VecView (vector.c:746) ==22508== by 0x400EEA: main (Test.C:21) ==22508== Address 0x7fefffe30 is on thread 1's stack ==22508== Uninitialised value was created by a stack allocation ==22508== at 0x56BD490: VecView_MPI_ASCII (pdvec.c:36) ==22508== ==22508== Uninitialised byte(s) found during client check request ==22508== at 0x4E49738: PMPI_Get_count (libmpiwrap.c:953) ==22508== by 0x56BE57F: VecView_MPI_ASCII (pdvec.c:79) ==22508== by 0x56C1BDA: VecView_MPI (pdvec.c:837) ==22508== by 0x58A9C9D: VecView (vector.c:746) ==22508== by 0x400EEA: main (Test.C:21) ==22508== Address 0x7fefffe30 is on thread 1's stack ==22508== Uninitialised value was created by a stack allocation ==22508== at 0x56BD490: VecView_MPI_ASCII (pdvec.c:36) > >> BTW: I also see memory leaks from getpwuid. Does anybody know about a >> patch for this? >> > > I think this is a libc issue. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
