On 21-Jul-2016 07:17, Julian Seward wrote:
> On 21/07/16 16:09, Julian Seward wrote:
>>
>>> - aspacem_maxAddr = (Addr) 0x7fff;
>>> + aspacem_maxAddr = (Addr) 0x40 - 1; // 256G
>>
>> Are you sure this frag is right? It seems to have drastically
>> reduced aspacem_maxAddr. It
> - aspacem_maxAddr = (Addr) 0x7fff;
> + aspacem_maxAddr = (Addr) 0x40 - 1; // 256G
Are you sure this frag is right? It seems to have drastically
reduced aspacem_maxAddr. It may be that this is a constant
that shouldn't change.
You can see what the initial memory layout loo
On 21/07/16 16:09, Julian Seward wrote:
>
>> - aspacem_maxAddr = (Addr) 0x7fff;
>> + aspacem_maxAddr = (Addr) 0x40 - 1; // 256G
>
> Are you sure this frag is right? It seems to have drastically
> reduced aspacem_maxAddr. It may be that this is a constant
> that shouldn't cha
On 20-Jul-2016 13:00, mathog wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I cannot seem to get valgrind to work with more than 24GB (or so)
> memory. Others report
> going much higher than that, so I must be doing something wrong.
Just found this
http://joelinoff.com/blog/?p=1549
which has a script for patchin
Greetings,
I cannot seem to get valgrind to work with more than 24GB (or so)
memory. Others report
going much higher than that, so I must be doing something wrong.
Starting with valgrind 3.11.0 from the SVN, built with no modifications
on a 64 bit Centos 6.8 system it did this:
~/bin/valgrind
