[valgrind] [Bug 384732] posix_spawn with glibc 2.25 causes an assertion

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384732 Christopher Head changed: What|Removed |Added CC||kdeb...@chead.ca -- You

[valgrind] [Bug 384732] posix_spawn with glibc 2.25 causes an assertion

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384732 --- Comment #14 from Daniel --- Created attachment 109075 --> https://bugs.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=109075=edit Patch with own replacement function for the provided test code This patch is a diff of the provided test code and

[valgrind] [Bug 384732] posix_spawn with glibc 2.25 causes an assertion

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384732 --- Comment #13 from Daniel --- Created attachment 109074 --> https://bugs.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=109074=edit Try to add a replacement function of posix_spawnp to vg_preloaded.c The patch is a diff of the current

[valgrind] [Bug 384732] posix_spawn with glibc 2.25 causes an assertion

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384732 --- Comment #12 from Philippe Waroquiers --- (In reply to Daniel from comment #11) > (In reply to Philippe Waroquiers from comment #10) > > What you might do is to write a replacement procedure for > >

[valgrind] [Bug 384732] posix_spawn with glibc 2.25 causes an assertion

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384732 --- Comment #11 from Daniel --- (In reply to Philippe Waroquiers from comment #10) > What you might do is to write a replacement procedure for > posix_spawn/posis_spawnp, using the technique/code of glibc 2.24. Good suggestion!

[valgrind] [Bug 384732] posix_spawn with glibc 2.25 causes an assertion

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384732 --- Comment #10 from Philippe Waroquiers --- (In reply to Daniel from comment #9) > Do you have any idea if this will/can be fixed? Nobody seems to work on this for the moment, so time to fix is unknown. It looks like the

[valgrind] [Bug 384732] posix_spawn with glibc 2.25 causes an assertion

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384732 --- Comment #9 from Daniel --- Do you have any idea if this will/can be fixed? Or do I have any possibility to work around this issue in my code? Greetings, Daniel -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all

[valgrind] [Bug 384732] posix_spawn with glibc 2.25 causes an assertion

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384732 Ivo Raisr changed: What|Removed |Added CC||iv...@ivosh.net --- Comment #8

[valgrind] [Bug 384732] posix_spawn with glibc 2.25 causes an assertion

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384732 Philippe Waroquiers changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[valgrind] [Bug 384732] posix_spawn with glibc 2.25 causes an assertion

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384732 --- Comment #6 from Mark Wielaard --- (In reply to Tom Hughes from comment #5) > We already detect CLONE_VFORK|CLONE_VM as a special case and deliberately > drop CLONE_VM because I imagine anything else would be a disaster as >

[valgrind] [Bug 384732] posix_spawn with glibc 2.25 causes an assertion

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384732 --- Comment #5 from Tom Hughes --- We already detect CLONE_VFORK|CLONE_VM as a special case and deliberately drop CLONE_VM because I imagine anything else would be a disaster as valgrind's shadow memory etc would be shared. The

[valgrind] [Bug 384732] posix_spawn with glibc 2.25 causes an assertion

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384732 --- Comment #4 from Mark Wielaard --- I wonder if we can also rely on the CLONE_VFORK mechanism. So if we see a clone with CLONE_VFORK | CLONE_VM we don't drop the CLONE_VM, but do freeze all other threads till we see the exec/exit

[valgrind] [Bug 384732] posix_spawn with glibc 2.25 causes an assertion

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384732 Mark Wielaard changed: What|Removed |Added CC||m...@klomp.org --- Comment #3

[valgrind] [Bug 384732] posix_spawn with glibc 2.25 causes an assertion

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384732 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added CC||t...@compton.nu --- Comment #2

[valgrind] [Bug 384732] posix_spawn with glibc 2.25 causes an assertion

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384732 --- Comment #1 from Daniel --- Edit: we're compiling with GCC 7.1.0, no idea if this makes any difference. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.