https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=398569
--- Comment #1 from Julian Seward ---
This happens because the partial-loads-ok heuristic inside Memcheck
only applies to word-sized loads on arm32, not to double-word-sized
loads, as would be required here. It *might* be possible to make it
do so
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404888
--- Comment #13 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Rhys Kidd from comment #11)
> autoconf-2.60released 2006-06-26
> autoconf-2.63released 2008-09-09
>
> Even autoconf-2.68 is nearly a decade old having been released on
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404888
--- Comment #12 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Rhys Kidd from comment #10)
> At the end of the block the "-Werror" is reverted, and autotools continues
> to the next block.
Ah, yes. I was aware of the flag save/restore game, b
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404888
--- Comment #9 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Rhys Kidd from comment #7)
> I also wonder whether valgrind should be explicit about a minimum supported
> version of autoconf (via AC_PREREQ() macro)?
I would be in favour of that. My only c
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404888
--- Comment #8 from Julian Seward ---
Rhys, thank you for the cleanup patches. I know next to nothing about
auto*, but these look OK to land, at least to my inexperienced eye. One
minor question:
0004-config-Conditionalize-finline-functions
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=126348
--- Comment #4 from Julian Seward ---
Vince, thanks for the patch. I have to say I am a little concerned
about landing it as-is, due to capability-check issues.
IIUC (and correct me if I am wrong): rdpmc support is something that
is either enabled
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404638
--- Comment #5 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Łukasz Marek from comment #4)
> Just one remark. Your method doesn't mark array sorted=false. I can live
> with that anyway.
Hmm, actually that's a good point. We do want to set sorted =
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404054
--- Comment #5 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #4)
> Julian, Carl, could you take a peek at the proposed patch in comment #3.
Mark, that looks totally fine to me. If it doesn't break anything (which
I think
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404638
--- Comment #2 from Julian Seward ---
or even
*(T*)VG_(indexXA)(arr, index) = new_value;
which removes the possibility of the array being modified between the
call to VG_(indexXA) and the assignment.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=404638
--- Comment #1 from Julian Seward ---
Is this actually necessary? I've always done this:
T* p = (T*)VG_(indexXA)(arr, index);
*p = new_value;
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=402369
--- Comment #9 from Julian Seward ---
This looks excellent to me; I especially appreciate the documentation.
I suggest landing it as-is, and if there's any residual breakage we can
easily enough fix it up after the event.
--
You are receiving
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=402781
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|REPORTED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=402781
--- Comment #8 from Julian Seward ---
Implementation for amd64-solaris and x86-solaris (UNTESTED!)
commit f96d131ce24cb403cc7a43c19bb651dd25fbe122
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=402781
--- Comment #7 from Julian Seward ---
Pushed, all targets except amd64-solaris and x86-solaris.
commit 50bb127b1df8d31812141aafa567d325d1fbc1b3
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=402781
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #117510|0 |1
is obsolete
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=402781
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #117497|0 |1
is obsolete
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=402781
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #117424|0 |1
is obsolete
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=402781
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #117291|0 |1
is obsolete
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=402781
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #117251|0 |1
is obsolete
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=402781
--- Comment #1 from Julian Seward ---
Created attachment 117251
--> https://bugs.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=117251=edit
WIP patch
Contains all C-level changes, plus assembly changes for amd64-linux and
x86-linux only, and therefore works o
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=402781
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||philippe.waroquiers@skynet
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=402781
Bug ID: 402781
Summary: Redo the cache used to process indirect branch targets
Product: valgrind
Version: 3.15 SVN
Platform: Other
OS: Linux
Status: REPORTED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=402515
--- Comment #4 from Julian Seward ---
This was discussed on irc. Summary is to go with the comment 1 patch, but
with the following changes:
* change the flag name to --show-error-list=no|yes,
* change the hint message from
For counts of detected
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=402519
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||c...@us.ibm.com
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=402519
Bug ID: 402519
Summary: POWER 3.0 addex instruction incorrectly implemented
Product: valgrind
Version: 3.15 SVN
Platform: Other
OS: Linux
Status: REPORTED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=402481
--- Comment #7 from Julian Seward ---
Landed, d43c20b3913780276f2c97a62cd8fba376be8c64.
> Once you land this fix I like to add my vbit-test-sec patch to get a bit
> more memcheck test coverage on those arches which have sec-arch support.
Yes,
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=402481
--- Comment #5 from Julian Seward ---
Created attachment 117078
--> https://bugs.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=117078=edit
Implement Iop_Sar64 in the x86 back end.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=402481
--- Comment #2 from Julian Seward ---
Arrgh. I'll fix it. Do you know if the same failure has occurred
for any other 32-bit targets, btw?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=402134
--- Comment #1 from Julian Seward ---
I suspect your fix is correct, but it concerns me that we haven't
seen a failure of this before. I'll try to reproduce it.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=386945
--- Comment #64 from Julian Seward ---
Created attachment 116861
--> https://bugs.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=116861=edit
Possible fix for the memcheck/tests/undef_malloc_args failure
(In reply to Mark from comment #63)
> Also memcheck
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=386945
--- Comment #62 from Julian Seward ---
Created attachment 116827
--> https://bugs.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=116827=edit
Possible fix for the comment 61 problems
This patch:
* changes set_AV_CR6 so that it does scalar comparisons against z
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=386945
--- Comment #52 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #51)
> I tried this, but seem to hit the following in the host_ppc_isel.c backend:
>
> static HReg iselWordExpr_R_wrk ( ISelEnv* env, const
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=386945
--- Comment #47 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #45)
> Unfortunately even with the ldbrx patch (which seems an OK improvement in
> itself) we still have some issues.
>
> ldbrx is also used on unalign
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=386945
--- Comment #46 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #44)
> Created attachment 116593 [details]
> implement ldbrx as 64-bit load and Iop_Reverse8sIn64_x1
>
> Real implementation of ldbrx as
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385411
--- Comment #14 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Andreas Arnez from comment #9)
> For the record, Julian Seward commented the following in IRC:
>
> * Regarding the fused multiply-add/subs:
>
> "I think the *right* fix here i
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385411
--- Comment #13 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Andreas Arnez from comment #11)
> Created attachment 116469 [details]
> Tests for vector FP support (v2)
>
> Revised version of the tests for the vector FP support. This version
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385411
--- Comment #12 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Andreas Arnez from comment #10)
> Created attachment 116468 [details]
> Vector floating point support (v2)
>
> Revised version of vector FP support. This should address all the fee
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=401112
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #116428|0 |1
is obsolete
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=386945
--- Comment #35 from Julian Seward ---
Fixed:
27fe22378da38424102c5292b782cacdd9d7b9e4
Add support for Iop_{Sar,Shr}8 on ppc. --expensive-definedness-checks=yes
needs them.
cb5d7e047598bff6d0f1d707a70d9fb1a1c7f0e2
fold_Expr: transform
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=386945
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #116331|0 |1
is obsolete
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=386945
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #111056|0 |1
is obsolete
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=400491
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsew...@acm.org
--- Comment #3 from Julian
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=400490
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsew...@acm.org
--- Comment #2 from Julian
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=397187
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsew...@acm.org
--- Comment #3 from Julian
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385411
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #115427|0 |1
is patch
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385411
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #115426|application/mbox|text/plain
mime type
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=356715
--- Comment #2 from Julian Seward ---
Hmm. I see that (even in 3.14.0) we advertise the F16C extension
in the simulated CPUID results, but don't actually implement the
instruction.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=399444
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ar...@linux.ibm.com
--
You are receiving
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385409
--- Comment #76 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Andreas Arnez from comment #75)
> (In reply to Julian Seward from comment #74)
> > Looks fine to me. Just two minor nits:
Ok, no problem; I don't have a strong preference for my suggestio
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385409
--- Comment #74 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Andreas Arnez from comment #73)
> Created attachment 115231 [details]
> Fixes based on Julian's comment #71
>
> For reference, here's what I changed based on the comments above. I'll
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=399087
--- Comment #6 from Julian Seward ---
It would be useful if you could re-run with no instrumentation (--tool=none)
and re-post the same logs as before. That has two purposes: first, many
fewer generated insns to wade through, and secondly
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=399087
--- Comment #5 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to John Reiser from comment #0)
It's clear that the thing has gone off of the rails somehow, but I'm not
sure I agree with your conclusion here:
> EXPECTED RESULT
> "add r15, r6, r10&quo
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385409
--- Comment #71 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Andreas Arnez from comment #68)
> Created attachment 115209 [details]
> s390x: Vector integer and string instruction support
Thank you for finishing this up. OK to land provided the stuff
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385409
--- Comment #70 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Andreas Arnez from comment #69)
> Created attachment 115210 [details]
> s390x: Vector string and insn support -- tests
This is fine. OK to land.
--
You are receiving this mail becaus
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385409
--- Comment #62 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Andreas Arnez from comment #60)
> Created attachment 114958 [details]
> Implement VLL/VLBB with aligned loads
Yes. Good. That looks fine to me. Thank you for redoing it.
--
You are rec
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396839
--- Comment #6 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Andreas Arnez from comment #4)
> Created attachment 115146 [details]
> Implement conditional trap instructions
This looks good to me. I would request only that for this ..
+#
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=395991
--- Comment #8 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Austin English from comment #7)
> > Austin, can you show me the source of the signal handler involved?
>
> Yeah, it's here:
> https://source.winehq.org/gi
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=398028
--- Comment #8 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Alexander from comment #6)
> it turns out that the most simple example I could come up with consists
> of a main.cpp file doing nothing. Link openblas and valgrind crashes
> immediately.
In
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=395991
--- Comment #6 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Austin English from comment #5)
> While the situation has changed, it still differs from what I see on amd64.
> Log attached.
Hmm. If I had to guess, I'd say that the signal frame that V c
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=395991
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=395991
--- Comment #3 from Julian Seward ---
Created attachment 115037
--> https://bugs.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=115037=edit
A possible fix
Austin, I think this might fix it. But I can only test it on
my tiny test case. Can you cause it to be tes
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385409
--- Comment #58 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Andreas Arnez from comment #57)
> Created attachment 114932 [details]
> Implement VLL with aligned loads
> Subject: [PATCH] s390x: Implement VLL/VLBB with aligned loads
Looks ok to me. O
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=397089
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=397089
--- Comment #4 from Julian Seward ---
Landed as 27194eb985b22a66b439925e821a41800bcb881e. Thanks for the patch.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=397089
--- Comment #2 from Julian Seward ---
Tomas: the test suite (none/tests/amd64/avx-1.c) contains only this
GEN_test_Ronly(VMOVSS_REG_XMM, "vmovss %%xmm9, %%xmm7, %%xmm8")
and I don't know whether that is the 10h or 11h instruction since
the
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=397089
--- Comment #1 from Julian Seward ---
The really worrying thing here is not that there is a bug, but that
the test suite failed to detect it. Investigating.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=398178
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsew...@acm.org
--- Comment #1 from Julian
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=398086
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsew...@acm.org
--- Comment #3 from Julian
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=398066
--- Comment #2 from Julian Seward ---
The patch looks sane to me. For adding spec rules like this, I use
the following testing strategy:
* first, slightly mis-implement it. For example, do Iop_Shr64 of 62
bits instead of 63.
* then check
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=398028
--- Comment #1 from Julian Seward ---
I think this is now fixed in the trunk. At least, I fixed something
that failed with the same assertion about a month back :-/
Try getting the source like this
git clone git://sourceware.org/git/valgrind.git
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=397354
--- Comment #1 from Julian Seward ---
Patch seems reasonable to me; commit?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=397256
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396001
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||taborke...@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=397238
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #114354|0 |1
is patch
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396906
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsew...@acm.org
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396905
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsew...@acm.org
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396452
--- Comment #2 from Julian Seward ---
Wasn't there some change subsequently pushed into binutils, that "fixes"
this?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396452
--- Comment #1 from Julian Seward ---
Mark, what's the status of this now? I have a vague memory that
this was resolved somehow, but I can't remember how.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396220
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |UNMAINTAINED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=395871
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |UNMAINTAINED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=395871
--- Comment #1 from Julian Seward ---
3.11.0 is really old. Please re-try with 3.13.0 or better with the
git trunk:
git clone git://sourceware.org/git/valgrind.git
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=395414
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=395414
--- Comment #2 from Julian Seward ---
Statistically speaking, this is most likely to be a (locking)
bug in your program. You run it with --tool=helgrind to get
more information.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=394903
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384230
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alexhenri...@gmail.com
--- Comment #18 from
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=394731
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=394585
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=394585
--- Comment #1 from Julian Seward ---
It's not a supported configuration. You need at least ARMv7-A + VFP.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=394361
--- Comment #1 from Julian Seward ---
Did you try without your patch, but the the flag --fair-sched=yes ?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=394307
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||josef.weidendor...@gmx.de
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=394227
--- Comment #3 from Julian Seward ---
This is probably easy to fix, but we need a test case that shows the
problem for all pcmpeq variants that you are interested in. Can you
supply one?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=394036
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |WORKSFORME
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=393457
--- Comment #1 from Julian Seward ---
There is not enough information in this bug report to do anything
with it. What processor is this on? What system?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=393351
--- Comment #2 from Julian Seward ---
I'm sure you're correct. But I'm still a bit surprised to see this.
Can you do some objdump -d -ery to find out what the instruction is?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=393182
--- Comment #1 from Julian Seward ---
I thought we already did support this, by intercepting the underlying system
call. Are you sure this doesn't work?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=393083
--- Comment #4 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to penteljapan from comment #2)
> (In reply to Tom Hughes from comment #1)
> > Can you please run with --trace-syscalls=yes and paste in the last few lines
> > leading up to the error?
>
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=385409
--- Comment #54 from Julian Seward ---
(In reply to Andreas Arnez from comment #50)
> In the meantime I noticed that we have another fundamental problem that
> comes with GCC's inlined strlen: The last vector load (VL, or with length =
> VLL)
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=388174
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=393146
--- Comment #5 from Julian Seward ---
Created attachment 114438
--> https://bugs.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=114438=edit
valgrind-bug393146-possible-fixes.diff
> Running into the same issue on two different macs (one installed via
>
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=393146
Julian Seward changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jsew...@acm.org
301 - 400 of 891 matches
Mail list logo
