I'll check the make sure, but I'm 99.9% certain the code doesn't use any of the valgrind API.
I'm nearly certain its first exposure to valgrind was me running it just now to help them track down some memory leak issues. The client request in coming from the MPI wrapper library that ships with valgrind. Thanks! -Tyson On Mon, Sep 21, 2015, 19:05 Tom Hughes <t...@compton.nu> wrote: > On 21/09/15 23:04, Tyson Whitehead wrote: > > > ==32704== Unaddressable byte(s) found during client check request > > ... > > ==32704== Address 0x243e6040 is 16,384 bytes inside a block of size > 1,048,576 alloc'd > > ... > > > > and > > > > ==32704== Invalid read of size 8 > > ... > > ==32704== Address 0x22fe2040 is 0 bytes inside a block of size > 1,048,576 alloc'd > > ... > > > > and > > > > ==32704== Invalid write of size 8 > > ... > > ==32704== Address 0x22fe2048 is 8 bytes inside a block of size > 1,048,576 alloc'd > > ... > > > > and on and on and on ... > > > > Are these valid errors? Everything I found online seemed to indicate > that error addresses should not fall entirely inside allocated blocks. > > Why should they not be valid? It probably just means somebody has used a > client request to mark that address as invalid. > > Tom > > -- > Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) > http://compton.nu/ >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Valgrind-users mailing list Valgrind-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/valgrind-users
