[chromium-dev] Re: new hunspell has tons of valgrind warnings... revert?
I am going to revert all the three suppression commits and the hunspell change shortly. -- Mohamed Mansour On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 1:05 PM, Wan-Teh Chang wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Dan Kegel wrote: > > > > > http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/waterfall/builders/Chromium%20Linux%20(valgrind)/builds/1671/steps/valgrind%20test:%20unit/logs/stdio > > introduces 26 new unintialized memory references and two leaks. > > That's a big enough batch that it might be a good idea > > to revert it and commit something later that isn't full of warnings. > > > > Or we could just go la la la la la and suppress them all. > > Our Coverity static analyais on Aug 1 (Run 43, based on the > "LATEST" revision at 2009-08-01 00:00:00 US Pacific Time) > also reported many new defects in Hunspell. > > If you're on Google's intranet, you can look at these Coverity > defects by logging into Coverity and clicking the "Hist. New Defects" > link (it should say "75") for Run ID 43. > > Wan-Teh > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: new hunspell has tons of valgrind warnings... revert?
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Dan Kegel wrote: > > http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/waterfall/builders/Chromium%20Linux%20(valgrind)/builds/1671/steps/valgrind%20test:%20unit/logs/stdio > introduces 26 new unintialized memory references and two leaks. > That's a big enough batch that it might be a good idea > to revert it and commit something later that isn't full of warnings. > > Or we could just go la la la la la and suppress them all. Our Coverity static analyais on Aug 1 (Run 43, based on the "LATEST" revision at 2009-08-01 00:00:00 US Pacific Time) also reported many new defects in Hunspell. If you're on Google's intranet, you can look at these Coverity defects by logging into Coverity and clicking the "Hist. New Defects" link (it should say "75") for Run ID 43. Wan-Teh --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: new hunspell has tons of valgrind warnings... revert?
I've never seen valgrind have problems with memory mapped files. On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 1:14 AM, Brett Wilson wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Dan Kegel wrote: >> I suppose you could try running the hunspell test suite itself >> under valgrind. Their README tells how to do it, but >> when I tried, I couldn't get it to work. (Wonder if that >> means they haven't run it, either?) > > Hi Dan, > > Purify has some problems with tracking memory that the OS memory maps, > and it ends up giving uninitialized memory reads for any 0xCCs that > the OS memory maps (since it doesn't see the write). > > Does Valgrind have a similar problem? Most of the data is memory > mapped. It seems unlikely to me given we didn't have this problem > before, but it's worth checking. > > My main concern is: who is working on this? It's OK like this for a > couple of days I guess, but this seems like a potentially serious > problem we don't want to file a bug and "get to it" later. It also > seems like Mohammed will need help, and I'll be out part of next week > (still figuring out the days). If we can't fond somebody to look at > this soon, we should probably back out until there is somebody. > > Brett > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: new hunspell has tons of valgrind warnings... revert?
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Dan Kegel wrote: > I suppose you could try running the hunspell test suite itself > under valgrind. Their README tells how to do it, but > when I tried, I couldn't get it to work. (Wonder if that > means they haven't run it, either?) Hi Dan, Purify has some problems with tracking memory that the OS memory maps, and it ends up giving uninitialized memory reads for any 0xCCs that the OS memory maps (since it doesn't see the write). Does Valgrind have a similar problem? Most of the data is memory mapped. It seems unlikely to me given we didn't have this problem before, but it's worth checking. My main concern is: who is working on this? It's OK like this for a couple of days I guess, but this seems like a potentially serious problem we don't want to file a bug and "get to it" later. It also seems like Mohammed will need help, and I'll be out part of next week (still figuring out the days). If we can't fond somebody to look at this soon, we should probably back out until there is somebody. Brett --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: new hunspell has tons of valgrind warnings... revert?
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Mohamed Mansour wrote:
> I am trying to learn about valgrind through
> the documentation,
> http://dev.chromium.org/developers/how-tos/using-valgrind,
> and it seems its Linux related, so I booted in Linux and installed all the
> valgrind tools.
> I get the following error, but the syntax seems right:
> m...@m0-desktop:~/chrome/src$ sh tools/valgrind/valgrind.sh
> tools/valgrind/valgrind.sh: 23: Syntax error: "(" unexpected (expecting "}")
Sorry about that - I didn't review that patch well enough :-(
It looks like a bashism. Try running with bash,
or use the other script (chrome_tests.sh) for now.
> As well, doing the following but got a different
> error :
> $ sh tools/valgrind/chrome_tests.sh -t unit
Do the unit tests work normally, i.e. without valgrind, on your linux box?
Which version of linux is it?
> Trying to get some help on what to do on IRC, but its long weekend.
> All the suppressions are similar, I don't understand fully what to do. The
> call stack all point to the thirdparty hunspell code not our ifdefs.
> If anyone knows about valgrind and willing to help, I will be on IRC. This
> hunspell update is needed for 3.
I suppose you could try running the hunspell test suite itself
under valgrind. Their README tells how to do it, but
when I tried, I couldn't get it to work. (Wonder if that
means they haven't run it, either?)
- Dan
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[chromium-dev] Re: new hunspell has tons of valgrind warnings... revert?
I was aware of that from last night. =(
Many suppressions, http://pastebin.com/m3b8f744f I am trying to learn about
valgrind through the documentation,
http://dev.chromium.org/developers/how-tos/using-valgrind, and it seems its
Linux related, so I booted in Linux and installed all the valgrind tools.
I get the following error, but the syntax seems right:
m...@m0-desktop:~/chrome/src$ sh tools/valgrind/valgrind.sh
tools/valgrind/valgrind.sh: 23: Syntax error: "(" unexpected (expecting "}")
As well, doing the following but got a different error
http://pastebin.com/m6464a279:
$ sh tools/valgrind/chrome_tests.sh -t unit
Trying to get some help on what to do on IRC, but its long weekend.
All the suppressions are similar, I don't understand fully what to do. The
call stack all point to the thirdparty hunspell code not our ifdefs.
If anyone knows about valgrind and willing to help, I will be on IRC. This
hunspell update is needed for 3.
-- Mohamed Mansour
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Dan Kegel wrote:
>
>
> http://build.chromium.org/buildbot/waterfall/builders/Chromium%20Linux%20(valgrind)/builds/1671/steps/valgrind%20test:%20unit/logs/stdio
> introduces 26 new unintialized memory references and two leaks.
> That's a big enough batch that it might be a good idea
> to revert it and commit something later that isn't full of warnings.
>
> Or we could just go la la la la la and suppress them all.
>
> Either way, we need the tree to go green.
>
> Opinions?
> - Dan
>
> >
>
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
