https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=360008
--- Comment #2 from Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroqui...@skynet.be> ---
Sorry, I saw this bug but forgot to work on it, thanks for the reminder.
Here is what I think is wrong:
valgrind on ppc64 implements a ppc64 version that provides the reg
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=359705
Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroqui...@skynet.be> changed:
What|Removed |Added
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=349128
Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroqui...@skynet.be> changed:
What|Removed |Added
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=359133
--- Comment #10 from Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroqui...@skynet.be> ---
(In reply to David Hallas from comment #9)
> So, should I go ahead and close the bug now that a testcase has been added?
Status was changed to RESOLVED/FIXED wh
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=359133
--- Comment #8 from Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroqui...@skynet.be> ---
(In reply to David Hallas from comment #7)
> I have attached a reduced test case that shows the problem. I have tested
> with gcc-4.9.3 and clang-3.7.1 using a 64bit
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=359133
--- Comment #5 from Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroqui...@skynet.be> ---
(In reply to David Hallas from comment #4)
> I can try :) What would the format of a testcase be? Would a C++ code
> snippet be good enough?
A small compilabl
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=359133
Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroqui...@skynet.be> changed:
What|Removed |Added
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=359133
Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroqui...@skynet.be> changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|---
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=348345
Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroqui...@skynet.be> changed:
What|Removed |Added
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=303877
Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroqui...@skynet.be> changed:
What|Removed |Added
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=356457
--- Comment #15 from Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroqui...@skynet.be> ---
(In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #14)
> Also no luck with --sanity-level=4
>
> The fact that it is not reproducible on command is indeed not simpli
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=356457
--- Comment #13 from Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroqui...@skynet.be> ---
(In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #12)
Thanks for this data.
The warning about the stack switch is normal : valgrind has an heuristic to
detect stack
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=357871
Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroqui...@skynet.be> changed:
What|Removed |Added
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=358030
Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroqui...@skynet.be> changed:
What|Removed |Added
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=357294
Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroqui...@skynet.be> changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |W
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=353660
Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroqui...@skynet.be> changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|---
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=357033
Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroqui...@skynet.be> changed:
What|Removed |Added
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=357034
Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroqui...@skynet.be> changed:
What|Removed |Added
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=356457
--- Comment #9 from Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroqui...@skynet.be> ---
(In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #8)
> I'll try something similar on the other machine, but the failure is not so
> easy to trigger, seemingly.
...
>
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=356457
--- Comment #5 from Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroqui...@skynet.be> ---
(In reply to Joost VandeVondele from comment #3)
> just happened again, but it is really rare. (this is a 12 core server
> running valgrind +-12h a day... an
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=191069
Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroqui...@skynet.be> changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RE
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=356273
--- Comment #5 from Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroqui...@skynet.be> ---
(In reply to Ivo Raisr from comment #2)
> I tried the patch and I see quite a lot of merged entries on Solaris 12:
Yes, for sure, I also see a lot of 'addLoc mergin
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=356457
Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroqui...@skynet.be> changed:
What|Removed |Added
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=356273
Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroqui...@skynet.be> changed:
What|Removed |Added
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=356174
--- Comment #16 from Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroqui...@skynet.be> ---
(In reply to Daniel Trebbien from comment #15)
> Looking through the sources of the release_35 and release_36 branches, I see
> that LLDB 3.5 and 3.6 do
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=356174
--- Comment #9 from Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroqui...@skynet.be> ---
An additional note: on x86 linux, valgrind gdbserver only reports the
Xfer:features:read+
supported if --vgdb-shadow-registers=yes is given.
On amd64 linux, Xfer:feature
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=356044
--- Comment #7 from Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroqui...@skynet.be> ---
(In reply to Ivo Raisr from comment #6)
> Created attachment 95828 [details]
> proposed patch
>
> Adjacent DiLoc entries are now merged if they refe
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=356174
Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroqui...@skynet.be> changed:
What|Removed |Added
401 - 428 of 428 matches
Mail list logo
