Just speculating, my understand of helgrind's algorithm is still poor ...
May be we shall store SegementIDs in TSET's instead of ThreadIDs?
On Dec 13, 2007 11:07 AM, Konstantin Serebryany <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But isn't it expensive?
>
>
> On Dec 13, 2007 11:01 AM, Julian Seward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday 13 December 2007 08:44, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > The same false positive appears when mixing mutexes and semaphores.
> > Test
> > > attached.
> > > As with cond vars, we are able to transition Excl(T1)->Excl(T2), but
> > can
> > > not do ShM(T1,T2)->Excl(T2).
> > >
> > > As I understand, fixing this properly will require storing SegmentID
> > in all
> > > shadow words, not only in those that are in Exclusive state.
> > > This will hardly squeeze into 32 bits though, need 64... :(
> >
> > No, I don't think so. We just need to do the same memory ownership
> > transition for semaphores that the "cvhack" patch does for CVs. I'll
> > extend the current patch.
> >
> > J
> >
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services
for just about anything Open Source.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace
_______________________________________________
Valgrind-developers mailing list
Valgrind-developers@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/valgrind-developers
