On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 02:26:03PM +0100, Richard Biener wrote: > > On Tue, 5 Mar 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > Thanks for all the recent reviews of memory leak plugging patches, > > > there are 4 still unreviewed from last week though. > > > > > > - sched-deps leak fix: > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-02/msg01197.html > > > > > > - LRA leak fix: > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-02/msg01239.html > > > > > > - libcpp leak fix: > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-02/msg01341.html > > > > > > - PCH leak fix + --enable-checking=valgrind changes to allow > > > --enable-checking=yes,valgrind bootstrap to succeed: > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-03/msg00044.html > > > > That looks awkward ... isn't there a simple valgrind_disable () / > > valgrind_enable () way of disabling checking around this code? > > Unfortunately not. I went through all valgrind.h and memcheck.h > client calls. If at least there was a VALGRIND_GET_VBITS variants > that allowed getting all vbits, (i.e. whether something is unaddressable > vs. undefined vs. defined), rather than just if any of the vbits are > unaddressable, give up, otherwise return undefined vs. defined bits, > it would simplify the code. I hope perhaps future valgrind version > could add that, so it would be just VALGRIND_GET_VBITS2, > VALGRIND_MAKE_MEM_DEFINED before and VALGRIND_SET_VBITS2 at the end > (restore previous state). I've at least added __builtin_expect, > so the binary search code isn't in hot path. It isn't that slow, > during binary search I'm always testing just a single byte, and > say if we don't have any single memory allocations > 4GB, it will be > at most 37 valgrind client calls per objects, usually much smaller > number than that.
Alternatively using a suppressions file during bootstrap might be possible ... maybe also useful for general valgrind debugging use? Richard.
