[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Chicken-users] news from the valgrind front
From: |
Jörg F . Wittenberger |
Subject: |
[Chicken-users] news from the valgrind front |
Date: |
07 Oct 2011 18:47:47 +0200 |
I ran into another valgrind message.
This one comes up *only* if -:g is given (that is
gc_report_flag == 1), and only if we come to
never_mind_edsgar:
by "goto".
In that case the variable "cont" might be not initialized,
and valgrind complains as it should.
So far it looks as if setting "count" to (whatever actually,
it's going to be effective under gc_report_flag only anyway)
value makes the warning go away.
I choose to copy the statement from major gc. But that's a wild
guess at the end of the day.
Since I have no idea whether or not the value is correct,
I'm not attaching a buggy diff here.
The relevant lines from runtime.c/C_reclaim
if(gc_mode == GC_REALLOC) {
C_rereclaim2(percentage(heap_size, C_heap_growth), 0);
gc_mode = GC_MAJOR;
count = (C_uword)tospace_top - (C_uword)tospace_start;
goto never_mind_edsgar;
}
The line
count = (C_uword)tospace_top - (C_uword)tospace_start;
would be new. But if my guess was wrong, then the value given
to count would be wrong.
The important part: assign somthing to count.
In that case for valgrinds sake. (Which so far looks quite good
as a memory debugger.)
Best regards
/Jörg
- [Chicken-users] Question again on heap mutation from signal handlers., Jörg F . Wittenberger, 2011/10/02
- Re: [Chicken-users] Question again on heap mutation from signal handlers., Jörg F . Wittenberger, 2011/10/02
- [Chicken-users] valgrind - more details, Jörg F . Wittenberger, 2011/10/05
- Re: [Chicken-users] valgrind - more details, Jörg F . Wittenberger, 2011/10/05
- Re: [Chicken-users] valgrind - more details, Jörg F . Wittenberger, 2011/10/05
- Re: [Chicken-users] valgrind - more details, Christian Kellermann, 2011/10/05
- Re: [Chicken-users] valgrind - more details, Jörg F . Wittenberger, 2011/10/06
- Re: [Chicken-users] valgrind - more details, Peter Bex, 2011/10/06
- Re: [Chicken-users] valgrind - more details, Jörg F . Wittenberger, 2011/10/06
- [Chicken-users] news from the valgrind front,
Jörg F . Wittenberger <=
- [Chicken-users] more: news from the valgrind front - another test case, Jörg F . Wittenberger, 2011/10/07
- Re: [Chicken-users] more: news from the valgrind front - another test case, Alan Post, 2011/10/07
- Re: [Chicken-users] more: news from the valgrind front - another test case, Jörg F . Wittenberger, 2011/10/07
- Re: [Chicken-users] more: news from the valgrind front - another test case, Alan Post, 2011/10/07
- Re: [Chicken-users] more: news from the valgrind front - another test case, Jörg F . Wittenberger, 2011/10/08
- Re: [Chicken-users] more: news from the valgrind front - another test case, Alan Post, 2011/10/08
- Re: [Chicken-users] more: news from the valgrind front - another test case, Jörg F . Wittenberger, 2011/10/08
- [Chicken-users] another news from the valgrind front, Jörg F . Wittenberger, 2011/10/11
- Re: [Chicken-users] another news from the valgrind front, Peter Bex, 2011/10/11