On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 at 03:26, Noah Misch wrote:
> Not objecting. I think the original Valgrind integration refrained from this
> because it would have added enough Valgrind client requests to greatly slow
> Valgrind runs. Valgrind reduced the cost of client requests in later years,
> so this new
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 01:28:08AM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> Any objections?
Not objecting. I think the original Valgrind integration refrained from this
because it would have added enough Valgrind client requests to greatly slow
Valgrind runs. Valgrind reduced the cost of client requests in
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 at 01:28, David Rowley wrote:
> Any objections?
It seems there are none. I'll have another look at the patch tomorrow
with the aim to get it in.
(Unless someone objects to me doing that before then)
David
On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 9:28 PM David Rowley wrote:
> Over on [1], Tom mentioned that we might want to rethink the decision
> to not protect chunk headers with Valgrind. That thread fixed a bug
> that was accessing array element -1, which effectively was reading the
> MemoryChunk at the start of
