On 01/21/2013 01:38 PM, Nick Overdijk wrote:
Ah of course. I didn't do that, I ran it myself manually on stage1. such as:
dsymutil stage1 valgrind stage1
That's because the call to valgrind is a bit hidden in some scripts that
are also used on linux. Should my way work?
I think it should;
==9070== Lock at 0xD81F6F8 was first observed
==9070==at 0x4C3077F: QMutex::QMutex(QMutex::RecursionMode)
(hg_intercepts.c:2186)
==9070==by 0x4C307A4: QMutex::QMutex(QMutex::RecursionMode)
(hg_intercepts.c:2192)
==9070==by 0x585A9CE: QPostEventList::QPostEventList()
On Wednesday 23 January 2013 12:24:30 Julian Seward wrote:
==9070== Lock at 0xD81F6F8 was first observed
==9070==at 0x4C3077F: QMutex::QMutex(QMutex::RecursionMode)
(hg_intercepts.c:2186) ==9070==by 0x4C307A4:
QMutex::QMutex(QMutex::RecursionMode) (hg_intercepts.c:2192) ==9070==
On Monday 27 August 2012 15:25:14 Marc Mutz wrote:
If atomic loads and stores on x86 are implemented with a volatile cast,
then the compiler can't reorder stuff around them, either. Not more than
with a std::atomic, at least. QAtomic does that. For load-relaxed, Thiago
thinks that a normal
On 01/23/2013 03:08 PM, David Faure wrote:
I was talking to Julian about this again today, and he pointed me to this
writeup:
http://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2007/11/30/volatile-almost-useless-for-multi-threaded-programming
We're looking at how to silence valgrind about Qt atomic
On Jan 23, 2013, at 8:08 AM CST, David Faure wrote:
On Monday 27 August 2012 15:25:14 Marc Mutz wrote:
If atomic loads and stores on x86 are implemented with a volatile cast,
then the compiler can't reorder stuff around them, either. Not more than
with a std::atomic, at least. QAtomic does
On Jan 20, 2013, at 3:50 PM CST, Nick Overdijk wrote:
I have a nice stacktrace from some memory error in valgrind, and it fails to
print the source file + line number somewhere. Here's the trace:
==63113== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)
[…]
==63113==
On 01/23/2013 04:22 PM, Dave Goodell wrote:
If you don't want to write inline assembly, this might be your best bet.
But on TSO systems like x86, you only need a compiler barrier.
In x86 inline assembly syntax, this looks like:
__asm__ __volatile__ ( ::: memory )
This prevents GCC (and
On Jan 23, 2013, at 9:55 AM CST, Thiago Macieira wrote:
On quarta-feira, 23 de janeiro de 2013 09.22.49, Dave Goodell wrote:
If you don't want to write inline assembly, this might be your best bet.
But on TSO systems like x86, you only need a compiler barrier. In x86
inline assembly
On Jan 23, 2013, at 10:33 AM CST, Dave Goodell wrote:
Julian/Bart/etc. may have more to add here. I remember having trouble with
annotating load-acquire/store-release in the past. Here's the (only
partially helpful) thread on the topic:
Sorry for the extra email. I accidentally whacked
10 matches
Mail list logo