On Friday 27 September 2013 17:51:19 Phil Longstaff wrote:
> > From: David Faure [mailto:fa...@kde.org]
> > Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 11:18 AM
> > To: Phil Longstaff
> > Cc: valgrind-users@lists.sourceforge.net
> > Subject: Re: [Valgrind-users] FW: Helgrind to
On Fri, 2013-09-27 at 15:01 +, Phil Longstaff wrote:
> I was thinking about this one last night, and it's trickier than I first
> thought.
>
> L = lock, T = trylock
> Thread1: L1 L2
> Thread2: L2 T1
>
> Not a deadlock because the trylock will just fail. However, suppose we have:
>
> Thread
On Friday 27 September 2013 15:01:54 Phil Longstaff wrote:
> I was thinking about this one last night, and it's trickier than I first
> thought.
>
> L = lock, T = trylock
> Thread1: L1 L2
> Thread2: L2 T1
>
> Not a deadlock because the trylock will just fail. However, suppose we
> have:
>
> Thr
c: Phil Longstaff
Subject: Re: [Valgrind-users] FW: Helgrind to-do list
On Wednesday 25 September 2013 18:24:59 Phil Longstaff wrote:
> * Don't update the lock-order graph, and don't check for errors,
> when a "try"-style lock operation happens (e.g. pthread_mutex_
Travis has commented about the need for #2 for a few suppressions. I have at
least 1 case of #1 in the PDB tree.
From: Phil Longstaff
Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 2:24 PM
To: valgrind-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Helgrind to-do list
The bottom of the helgrind section of the manua