Re: [Valgrind-users] FW: Helgrind to-do list

2013-09-28 Thread David Faure
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

Re: [Valgrind-users] FW: Helgrind to-do list

2013-09-27 Thread Philippe Waroquiers
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

Re: [Valgrind-users] FW: Helgrind to-do list

2013-09-27 Thread David Faure
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

Re: [Valgrind-users] FW: Helgrind to-do list

2013-09-27 Thread Phil Longstaff
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_

[Valgrind-users] FW: Helgrind to-do list

2013-09-25 Thread Phil Longstaff
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