On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Orna Agmon wrote: > On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, guy keren wrote: > > On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, Orna Agmon wrote: > > > > > Valgrind is not always correct. It sometimes reports errors which do not > > > exists - they have no reason to exist and other memory checkers (such as > > > third) do not find them. > > > > that, ofcourse, is no proof - the other checker might be too limited, or > > have a bug, causing it not to find something that valgrind found. lets not > > be too absolute here. > > This happens, too, but I learned to tell the difference, at least on my > program. When valgrind claims that the 17th item of an array is > uninitialized, this means the problem is somewhere else.
this _might_ be because of the way valgrind handles "access to uninitialized memory". it only denotes this as an error if the uninitialized memory is used in something other then simple assignment. i.e: int i; int j = i; int k = j; if (k > 0) blablabla... valgrind will only point the last one as an error (at least, that's how it is in valgrind-1.0.3). > When valgrind gives reasonable warnings, and the other checker does not - > valgrind is correct. (according to myexperience, at least) finally, don't take what you see with your program, as a rule of thumb to other programs. young people who read this take it literally to mean this is always the case. -- guy "For world domination - press 1, or dial 0, and please hold, for the creator." -- nob o. dy ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
