Re: distinguishing gcc compilation valgrind false positives

On 11/25/21 13:00, Zdenek Sojka via Gcc wrote: which is already reported ashttps://gcc.gnu.org/PR101292 , the other warnings are still there: Hello. Please create a bugzilla entry for this. Thanks, Martin

Re: distinguishing gcc compilation valgrind false positives

Hello Jan, -- Původní e-mail -- Od: Jan Hubicka Komu: Zdenek Sojka Datum: 25. 11. 2021 12:54:00 Předmět: Re: distinguishing gcc compilation valgrind false positives > > I can confirm that zero-initializing node_is_self_scc prevents the > uninitialised use

Re: distinguishing gcc compilation valgrind false positives

> > I can confirm that zero-initializing node_is_self_scc prevents the > uninitialised use warnings in incorporate_penalties (ipa-cp.c:3282) Great, I will commit the patch. But I also wonder if there are any remaining unitialized warnings in ipa code? Honza > > Thanks, > Zdenek > >

Re: distinguishing gcc compilation valgrind false positives

Hello Jan, -- Původní e-mail -- Od: Jan Hubicka via Gcc Komu: Martin Jambor Datum: 25. 11. 2021 11:13:33 Předmět: Re: distinguishing gcc compilation valgrind false positives > > > > diff --git a/gcc/ipa-prop.h b/gcc/ipa-prop.h > > index 42842d9466a..

Re: distinguishing gcc compilation valgrind false positives

> > > > diff --git a/gcc/ipa-prop.h b/gcc/ipa-prop.h > > index 42842d9466a..1d0c115465c 100644 > > --- a/gcc/ipa-prop.h > > +++ b/gcc/ipa-prop.h > > @@ -623,8 +623,8 @@ ipa_node_params::ipa_node_params () > > : descriptors (NULL), lattices (NULL), ipcp_orig_node (NULL), > >known_csts (vNULL),

Re: distinguishing gcc compilation valgrind false positives

Hi, On Wed, Nov 24 2021, Jan Hubicka via Gcc wrote: >> ==5404== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s) >> ==5404==    at 0x25DAAD7: incorporate_penalties (ipa-cp.c:3282) >> ==5404==    by 0x25DAAD7: good_cloning_opportunity_p(cgraph_node*, sreal, >> sreal, profile_count, int)

Re: distinguishing gcc compilation valgrind false positives

On 11/24/2021 12:41 PM, Zdenek Sojka wrote: Hello Jeff, -- Původní e-mail -- Od: Jeff Law via Gcc Komu: Paul Floyd , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Datum: 24. 11. 2021 20:33:02 Předmět: Re: distinguishing gcc compilation valgrind false positives On 11/24/2021 12:15 PM, Paul Floyd

Re: distinguishing gcc compilation valgrind false positives

Hi! On 2021-11-24T20:05:56+0100, Zdenek Sojka via Gcc wrote: > from time to time, I come upon a testcase that failed during the automated > runs, but passes during reduction; there are valgrind warnings present, > however. Thanks for looking into this. Please collect any Valgrind notes at

Re: distinguishing gcc compilation valgrind false positives

Hi the main reason why it looks like a false positive is that I've had these valgrind warnings ... since probably ever, but it was never causing issues. I cannot tell from the sources if there is anything wrong, so I am better asking here. Well, that's the nature of undefined

Re: distinguishing gcc compilation valgrind false positives

> ==5404== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s) > ==5404==    at 0x25DAAD7: incorporate_penalties (ipa-cp.c:3282) > ==5404==    by 0x25DAAD7: good_cloning_opportunity_p(cgraph_node*, sreal, > sreal, profile_count, int) (ipa-cp.c:3340) I looked at this one (since it is in

Re: distinguishing gcc compilation valgrind false positives

Hello Jeff, -- Původní e-mail -- Od: Jeff Law via Gcc Komu: Paul Floyd , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Datum: 24. 11. 2021 20:33:02 Předmět: Re: distinguishing gcc compilation valgrind false positives " On 11/24/2021 12:15 PM, Paul Floyd via Gcc wrote: > > On 24/11/2021 20:05, Z

Re: distinguishing gcc compilation valgrind false positives

On Wed, Nov 24, 2021 at 12:31:53PM -0700, Jeff Law via Gcc wrote: > Agreed.  Work from the assumption it's a real GCC issue until proven > otherwise. > > I believe GCC has annotations to help valgrind that are turned on by a magic > configuration option as well. True, but Zdenek has them turned

Re: distinguishing gcc compilation valgrind false positives

Hello Paul, (sorry for re-post, I didn't include the ML in the original reply) -- Původní e-mail -- Od: Paul Floyd via Gcc Komu: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Datum: 24. 11. 2021 20:16:33 Předmět: Re: distinguishing gcc compilation valgrind false positives " On 24/11/2021 20:05, Zdenek

Re: distinguishing gcc compilation valgrind false positives

On 11/24/2021 12:15 PM, Paul Floyd via Gcc wrote: On 24/11/2021 20:05, Zdenek Sojka via Gcc wrote: Hello, from time to time, I come upon a testcase that failed during the automated runs, but passes during reduction; there are valgrind warnings present, however. How do I distinguish what

Re: distinguishing gcc compilation valgrind false positives

On 24/11/2021 20:05, Zdenek Sojka via Gcc wrote: Hello, from time to time, I come upon a testcase that failed during the automated runs, but passes during reduction; there are valgrind warnings present, however. How do I distinguish what warnings are valid and which are false positives? Is

distinguishing gcc compilation valgrind false positives

Hello, from time to time, I come upon a testcase that failed during the automated runs, but passes during reduction; there are valgrind warnings present, however. How do I distinguish what warnings are valid and which are false positives? Is there any way gcc could prevent generating the false