[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] GCC 8 pre-releases have escaped...
From: |
Ralph Corderoy |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] GCC 8 pre-releases have escaped... |
Date: |
Tue, 13 Feb 2018 09:55:56 +0000 |
Hi Ken,
> Alright, I pushed a change to master and 1.7-release that eliminates
> that call to free(). Ralph, does that solve your problem?
With 1.7-branchpoint-495-g19c69cf3, valgrind 1:3.13.0-1ubuntu3 on one
machine moans.
Source and destination overlap in memcpy_chk(0x1ffefeedc0, 0x1ffefeedc0, 22)
at 0x4C37660: __memcpy_chk (in
/usr/lib/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so)
by 0x11BAA4: memmove (string_fortified.h:40)
by 0x11BAA4: fmt_scan (fmt_scan.c:756)
by 0x115B78: build_form (forwsbr.c:193)
by 0x10F2BF: main (forw.c:455)
FAIL: test/forw/test-forw-format
Source and destination overlap in memcpy_chk(0x1ffeff3060, 0x1ffeff3061, 18)
at 0x4C37660: __memcpy_chk (in
/usr/lib/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so)
by 0x11CA74: memmove (string_fortified.h:40)
by 0x11CA74: fmt_scan (fmt_scan.c:756)
by 0x1100C9: replout (replsbr.c:225)
by 0x10E99E: main (repl.c:470)
first named test failure: -cc me
But they make no sense since memmove(3)'s point is the regions may
overlap.
The same 1.7-branchpoint-495-g19c69cf3 on another machine with valgrind
3.13.0-6 running just those two tests under valgrind is silent.
Maximum resident set size. (I forgot to say previously that I've no
swap for any of these measurements.)
$ for n in 1 10 100 1000 10000; do
> \time -f %M uip/scan -width 80 last:$n >/dev/null
> done
3872
3808
4012
4056
4180
$
Those previous troublesome emails.
$ valgrind uip/scan -forma '%<{date}d%>%<(mymbox{from})f%<(mymbox{to})t%>%>'
dft
dft
dft
dft
dft
d
==978== HEAP SUMMARY:
==978== in use at exit: 58,467 bytes in 206 blocks
==978== total heap usage: 2,845 allocs, 2,639 frees, 432,238 bytes
allocated
==978==
==978== LEAK SUMMARY:
==978== definitely lost: 142 bytes in 3 blocks
==978== indirectly lost: 40 bytes in 3 blocks
==978== possibly lost: 56 bytes in 1 blocks
==978== still reachable: 58,229 bytes in 199 blocks
==978== suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
So all looks good to me.
--
Cheers, Ralph.
https://plus.google.com/+RalphCorderoy
- Re: [Nmh-workers] GCC 8 pre-releases have escaped..., (continued)
- Re: [Nmh-workers] GCC 8 pre-releases have escaped..., Bakul Shah, 2018/02/09
- Re: [Nmh-workers] GCC 8 pre-releases have escaped..., Ralph Corderoy, 2018/02/10
- Re: [Nmh-workers] GCC 8 pre-releases have escaped..., Ken Hornstein, 2018/02/10
- Re: [Nmh-workers] GCC 8 pre-releases have escaped..., Paul Vixie, 2018/02/10
- Re: [Nmh-workers] GCC 8 pre-releases have escaped..., Ralph Corderoy, 2018/02/10
- Re: [Nmh-workers] GCC 8 pre-releases have escaped..., Ralph Corderoy, 2018/02/10
- Re: [Nmh-workers] GCC 8 pre-releases have escaped..., Ken Hornstein, 2018/02/10
- Re: [Nmh-workers] GCC 8 pre-releases have escaped..., Paul Vixie, 2018/02/10
- Re: [Nmh-workers] GCC 8 pre-releases have escaped..., Ralph Corderoy, 2018/02/10
- Re: [Nmh-workers] GCC 8 pre-releases have escaped..., Ken Hornstein, 2018/02/12
- Re: [Nmh-workers] GCC 8 pre-releases have escaped...,
Ralph Corderoy <=
- Re: [Nmh-workers] GCC 8 pre-releases have escaped..., Ken Hornstein, 2018/02/13
- Re: [Nmh-workers] GCC 8 pre-releases have escaped..., Ken Hornstein, 2018/02/13
- [Nmh-workers] Blockers for 1.7.1., Ralph Corderoy, 2018/02/17
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Blockers for 1.7.1., Ken Hornstein, 2018/02/17
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Blockers for 1.7.1., David Levine, 2018/02/19
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Blockers for 1.7.1., Ken Hornstein, 2018/02/19
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Blockers for 1.7.1., David Levine, 2018/02/19
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Blockers for 1.7.1., Ralph Corderoy, 2018/02/20
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Blockers for 1.7.1., David Levine, 2018/02/20
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Blockers for 1.7.1., Ralph Corderoy, 2018/02/20