On 11.01.2017 23:10, Marc Lehmann wrote: > Personally, I would do as I suggesxted in my first reply, namly asking > them to correctly recognize the memory fence instruction. As I thought, the author of valgrind states that what you're doing is not OK.
If you think Julian is wrong, please talk to him directly. https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=374940 :: Julian Seward <mailto:[email protected]>: The libev code is incorrect and should be fixed. It it violates the ABI. The problem isn't that the memory is uninitialised. It is that the program isn't allowed to access below %esp at any time, for at least the following reasons: * a signal may get delivered at any time, in which case the signal handler's frame will overwrite the value at -1(%esp). * since the kernel "knows" that programs may not access below %esp, it would be within its rights to unmap the page containing -1(%esp). If %esp pointed exactly to the bottom of a page then the access at -1(%esp) would cause an unexpected page (segmentation) fault. -- -- Matthias Urlichs
_______________________________________________ libev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.schmorp.de/mailman/listinfo/libev
