[valgrind] [Bug 369459] valgrind on arm64 violates the ARMv8 spec (ldxr/stxr)

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=369459 --- Comment #15 from Julian Seward --- (In reply to Peter Maydell from comment #14) > [..] so you might find your > autodetect test code passed but later generated code didn't. True. > Plus on big.LITTLE you might later be running

[valgrind] [Bug 369459] valgrind on arm64 violates the ARMv8 spec (ldxr/stxr)

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=369459 --- Comment #12 from Julian Seward --- Andrew, do you know how well Maran's proposal https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=344524#c8 worked on MIPS64r3 (Octeon 3) ? IOW is it worth taking and generalising? -- You are receiving this

[valgrind] [Bug 369459] valgrind on arm64 violates the ARMv8 spec (ldxr/stxr)

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=369459 --- Comment #11 from Julian Seward --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #10) Another possibility is to run a test sequence on the host CPU at startup, whilst we are still single threaded, containing LL, SC and some stores in

[valgrind] [Bug 371491] handleAddrOverrides() is truncating the segment base address when ASO prefix is used

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=371491 --- Comment #2 from Julian Seward --- Sounds plausible, and it's nice that it's easy to fix. But I'm a bit concerned about the untestability of this. Is there no easy way to test this? -- You are receiving this mail because: You

[valgrind] [Bug 344524] store conditional of guest applications always fail - observed on Octeon3(MIPS)

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=344524 --- Comment #12 from Julian Seward --- Maran, the same problem has been reported for ARM64/OCTEON3 at https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=369459. So let me ask: how well does your proposed solution in comments 9 and 10 work? Did

[valgrind] [Bug 369459] valgrind on arm64 violates the ARMv8 spec (ldxr/stxr)

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=369459 --- Comment #9 from Julian Seward --- Maybe we could use Maran's proposal for fixing the same problem on MIPS OCTEON3. https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=344524#c8 (and 9 and 10). This provides a correct implementation, including

[valgrind] [Bug 369459] valgrind on arm64 violates the ARMv8 spec (ldxr/stxr)

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=369459 --- Comment #7 from Julian Seward --- Hmm, I see stuff like this: 9858: 885ffe62ldaxr w2, [x19] 985c: 6b1f005fcmp w2, wzr 9860: 54fff7e1b.ne975c

[valgrind] [Bug 369459] valgrind on arm64 violates the ARMv8 spec (ldxr/stxr)

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=369459 --- Comment #6 from Julian Seward --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5) > One idea I have is to pattern match on the ldxr/stxr sequence and produce a > single instruction in the IR and then decode them after the fact. On

[valgrind] [Bug 371065] www: add CfP for FOSDEM 2017 in valgrind.org NEWS section

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=371065 Julian Seward changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[valgrind] [Bug 368507] valgrind throws std::bad_alloc on memory allocations larger than 34255421416 bytes

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=368507 --- Comment #5 from Julian Seward --- I had hoped to do this for 3.12.0, but after looking at the #ifdef swamp in VG_(am_startup) that sets aspacem_maxAddr, I think it is too risky, because of the number of different cases that need to

[valgrind] [Bug 359645] [patch] "You need libc6-dbg" help message could be more helpful with 32-bit target on-64-bit arch

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=359645 Julian Seward changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED

[valgrind] [Bug 368419] Perf Events ioctls not implemented

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=368419 Julian Seward changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[valgrind] [Bug 357059] x86: SSE cvtpi2ps with memory source does transition to MMX state

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=357059 Julian Seward changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[valgrind] [Bug 357932] vex amd64->IR: unhandled instruction bytes: 0xF2 0x49 0xF 0x5D and 0xF2 0x49 0xF 0x5F

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=357932 Julian Seward changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[valgrind] [Bug 369264] Fedora 24 i686 and vex x86->IR: unhandled instruction bytes: 0xC5 0xF8 0x10 0x3

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=369264 Julian Seward changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[valgrind] [Bug 352197] mips32: mmap2() not wrapped correctly for page size > 4096

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=352197 Julian Seward changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[valgrind] [Bug 358213] helgrind/drd bar_bad testcase hangs with new glibc pthread barrier implementation

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=358213 --- Comment #7 from Julian Seward --- Should we close this now? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

[valgrind] [Bug 365208] valgrind stuck after redirecting "memcpy"

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=365208 --- Comment #7 from Julian Seward --- What CPU are you running on here? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

[valgrind] [Bug 351282] valgrind 3.10.1 MIPS softfloat build broken with GCC 4.9.3 / binutils 2.25.1

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351282 Julian Seward changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[valgrind] [Bug 366817] VALGRIND_MEMPOOL_CHANGE has a performance bug

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=366817 --- Comment #2 from Julian Seward --- ping? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

[valgrind] [Bug 367942] Segfault vgPlain_do_sys_sigaction (m_signals.c:1138)

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=367942 --- Comment #1 from Julian Seward --- There have been commits to the trunk which make V more robust to bad parameters to rt_sigaction and friends. Can you re-try with the trunk, or with the upcoming 3.12.0 release? -- You are

[valgrind] [Bug 355803] Add Lustre's IOC_MDC_GETFILESTRIPE ioctl

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=355803 --- Comment #8 from Julian Seward --- Frank, ping me when this hits the mainline kernel. Then we can take the patch in V. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

[valgrind] [Bug 352767] Wine/valgrind: Warning: noted but unhandled ioctl 0x5307 with no size/direction hints. (CDROMSTOP)

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=352767 --- Comment #3 from Julian Seward --- (In reply to austinengl...@gmail.com from comment #2) > Not currently, but I took a quick look. There are several more syscalls that > wine uses in the source that are bsd/osx specific, but I can't

[valgrind] [Bug 366079] FPXX Support for MIPS32 Valgrind

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=366079 Julian Seward changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED

[valgrind] [Bug 356112] mips: replace addi with addiu

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=356112 Julian Seward changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED

[valgrind] [Bug 369723] __builtin_longjmp not supported in clang/llvm on Android arm64 target

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=369723 --- Comment #2 from Julian Seward --- (In reply to chh from comment #0) > Suggested fix, to add VG_MINIMAL_SETJMP and VG_MINIMAL_LONGJMP for > VGP_arm64_linux: > [..patch follows..] Thank you for looking into this. This looks like a

[valgrind] [Bug 360571] Error about the Android Runtime reading below the stack pointer on ARM

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=360571 Julian Seward changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED

[valgrind] [Bug 368120] x86_linux asm _start functions do not keep 16-byte aligned stack pointer

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=368120 Julian Seward changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[valgrind] [Bug 368823] run_a_thread_NORETURN assembly code typo for VGP_arm64_linux target

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=368823 Julian Seward changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED

[valgrind] [Bug 360571] Error about the Android Runtime reading below the stack pointer on ARM

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=360571 --- Comment #11 from Julian Seward --- Committed on trunk, r16073. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

[valgrind] [Bug 365327] Support macOS Sierra (10.12)

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=365327 --- Comment #5 from Julian Seward --- (In reply to Rhys Kidd from comment #4) > Preliminary support added in r15976. Merged to 3_12_BRANCH in r16071. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

[valgrind] [Bug 352197] mips32: mmap2() not wrapped correctly for page size > 4096

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=352197 --- Comment #4 from Julian Seward --- Petar: Duncan: the patch fixes only the mips32 case. Is the mips64 path correct, or does that also need to be fixed? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

[valgrind] [Bug 370398] trunk/VEX/priv/guest_x86_helpers.c:1693: strange expression ?

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=370398 Julian Seward changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID

[valgrind] [Bug 370398] trunk/VEX/priv/guest_x86_helpers.c:1693: strange expression ?

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=370398 --- Comment #1 from Julian Seward --- The code is as intended. Compare with line 1688 (a few lines up) and you'll see why it is written how it is. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

[valgrind] [Bug 370028] Reduce the number of compiler warnings on MIPS platforms

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=370028 --- Comment #9 from Julian Seward --- This feels to me like hiding misalignment problems. I'd prefer to remove misaligned accesses where possible. Building with --enable-usban at least makes it possible to see, on any platform, where

[valgrind] [Bug 369439] S390x: Unhandled insns RISBLG/RISBHG and LDE/LDER

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=369439 Julian Seward changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[valgrind] [Bug 369854] Valgrind reports an Invalid Read in __intel_new_memcpy

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=369854 --- Comment #2 from Julian Seward --- What version of Valgrind are you using here? Can you re-run with the extra flag --partial-loads-ok=yes ? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

[valgrind] [Bug 360571] Error about the Android Runtime reading below the stack pointer on ARM

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=360571 --- Comment #7 from Julian Seward --- Created attachment 101476 --> https://bugs.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=101476=edit Proposed fix (lacks documentation, but seems to work) For example, to keep the test program (next attachment)

[valgrind] [Bug 360571] Error about the Android Runtime reading below the stack pointer on ARM

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=360571 --- Comment #9 from Julian Seward --- Anton, can you perhaps try this on aarch64 ? Would this work for you? (Apologies .. there's one line in the test program you'll have to change.) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are

[valgrind] [Bug 360571] Error about the Android Runtime reading below the stack pointer on ARM

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=360571 --- Comment #8 from Julian Seward --- Created attachment 101477 --> https://bugs.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=101477=edit A simple test program. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

[valgrind] [Bug 354274] arm: unhandled instruction: 0xEBAD 0x0AC1 (sub.w sl, sp, r1, lsl #3)

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=354274 Julian Seward changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED

[valgrind] [Bug 369459] valgrind on arm64 violates the ARMv8 spec (ldxr/stxr)

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=369459 --- Comment #3 from Julian Seward --- Andrew, do you know which implementation this is? eg is it a Cortex A-something, or something else? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

[valgrind] [Bug 369175] jm_vec_isa_2_07 test crashes on ppc64

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=369175 --- Comment #24 from Julian Seward --- (In reply to Ulrich Weigand from comment #23) > However, adding calls to fnptr_to_fnentry at a high level likewise seems > wrong, since once you've done that, you've forgotten where the function >

[valgrind] [Bug 369175] jm_vec_isa_2_07 test crashes on ppc64

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=369175 --- Comment #22 from Julian Seward --- Looking for helper calls in the the whole of guest_ppc_toIR.c, by searching for the string "mkIRExprVec_", I found the following non-wrapped uses of function pointers. They should all be wrapped

[valgrind] [Bug 369175] jm_vec_isa_2_07 test crashes on ppc64

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=369175 --- Comment #5 from Julian Seward --- Still can't repro it, but with a test case for this insn, the two calls look like this: IR and virtual-registerised code: -- t127 =

[valgrind] [Bug 357932] vex amd64->IR: unhandled instruction bytes: 0xF2 0x49 0xF 0x5D and 0xF2 0x49 0xF 0x5F

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=357932 --- Comment #5 from Julian Seward --- Mark, I think the patch is OK. In these insns we have, redundantly: REX.W=1, which says that this insn is 64-bits wide w.r.t. how it interacts with the integer register set, which is irrelevant

[valgrind] [Bug 367995] Integration of memcheck with custom memory allocator

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=367995 --- Comment #16 from Julian Seward --- Philippe, thank you for looking at this. And Ruurd, for your patience. > The overhead is only incurred by custom allocators using the auto-free > feature, > not by any existing applications or

[valgrind] [Bug 369175] jm_vec_isa_2_07 test crashes on ppc64

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=369175 --- Comment #4 from Julian Seward --- Comment 3 assumes that the block that segfaults is the same one where the (we assume) mis-translation occurred. It might be that some previous block was mis-translated and causes the simulated

[valgrind] [Bug 369175] jm_vec_isa_2_07 test crashes on ppc64

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=369175 --- Comment #3 from Julian Seward --- This kind of thing could well be due to incorrect register allocation around the calls, perhaps corrupting the values passed to the calls or corrupting values in registers around the call site,

[valgrind] [Bug 361253] [s390x] ex_clone.c:42: undefined reference to `pthread_create'

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=361253 Julian Seward changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[valgrind] [Bug 361253] [s390x] ex_clone.c:42: undefined reference to `pthread_create'

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=361253 Julian Seward changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ar...@linux.vnet.ibm.com,

[valgrind] [Bug 366413] s390x: New z13 instructions not implemented

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=366413 Julian Seward changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ar...@linux.vnet.ibm.com,

[valgrind] [Bug 365327] Support macOS Sierra (10.12)

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=365327 --- Comment #3 from Julian Seward --- The patches look OK to me. Only one nit: --- coregrind/m_syswrap/syswrap-amd64-darwin.c(revision 15949) +++ coregrind/m_syswrap/syswrap-amd64-darwin.c(working copy) +# elif

[valgrind] [Bug 351692] Dumps created by valgrind are not readable by gdb

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=351692 Julian Seward changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mips3...@gmail.com -- You

[valgrind] [Bug 362953] Request for an update to the Valgrind Developers page

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=362953 Julian Seward changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[valgrind] [Bug 367995] Integration of memcheck with custom memory allocator

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=367995 --- Comment #9 from Julian Seward --- Ivo, thank you for reviewing this; Ruurd, thank you for addressing Ivo's comments. I looked at the revised patch. I am generally a bit nervous about mempool changes given that they are not much

[valgrind] [Bug 355197] Too strong assert in variable debug info code (chase_cuOff, assert)

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=355197 Julian Seward changed: What|Removed |Added CC||philippe.waroquiers@skynet.

[valgrind] [Bug 355231] Unhandled Instruction Bytes (vmovdqu, "0xC5 0xFA 0x6F 0x2")

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=355231 --- Comment #3 from Julian Seward --- I think we might be talking at cross purposes. Sure, the silicon supports VMOVDQU (and other AVX insns) in both 32- and 64-bit modes. What I meant is, Valgrind doesn't; 32-bit support doesn't

[valgrind] [Bug 357059] x86: SSE cvtpi2ps with memory source does transition to MMX state

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=357059 --- Comment #3 from Julian Seward --- If I had to guess, I would say that the Sept 2015 Intel docs are wrong, and that this instruction (cvtpi2ps) should behave the same way as cvtpi2pd does -- that is, a transition to MMX state

[valgrind] [Bug 357059] x86: SSE cvtpi2ps with memory source does transition to MMX state

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=357059 --- Comment #2 from Julian Seward --- I'm not sure your test program is correct. The tag word is 16 bits at byte offsets 8 and 9, but the program tests fenv[9] and [10]. That said .. even after changing the 9 and 10 to 8 and 9, it

[valgrind] [Bug 358856] unhandled instruction bytes: 0xC4 0xE2 0x7B 0xF7

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=358856 Julian Seward changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |WONTFIX

[valgrind] [Bug 355231] Unhandled Instruction Bytes (vmovdqu, "0xC5 0xFA 0x6F 0x2")

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=355231 Julian Seward changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[valgrind] [Bug 357673] crash if I try to run valgrind with a binary link with libcurl

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=357673 Julian Seward changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED

[valgrind] [Bug 362934] [AsusWRT] Arm v7 illegal instruction

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=362934 --- Comment #1 from Julian Seward --- What CPU/SOC is this? Do you know if it is NEON capable? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

[valgrind] [Bug 356823] Unsupported ARM instruction: stlex

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=356823 Julian Seward changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[valgrind] [Bug 356138] vex amd64->IR unhandled instruction bytes 0x8F 0xEA 0x78 0x10 0xD2 0x6 0x6 0x0

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=356138 Julian Seward changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE

[valgrind] [Bug 356392] FPU control word not updated on FYL2X with ST(0) = 0

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=356392 --- Comment #2 from Julian Seward --- Oh, you mean the "Zero Divide" flag that is bit 2 of %fpscr. The simulation for FP is somewhat approximate and in particular only %fpscr.{C0,C1,C2,C3,TOP} are simulated. So in your case it's not

[valgrind] [Bug 354931] Analyze of qt app results in incompatible processor message

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=354931 Julian Seward changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[valgrind] [Bug 356392] FPU control word not updated on FYL2X with ST(0) = 0

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=356392 --- Comment #1 from Julian Seward --- I'm a bit confused by this. My Intel docs (Nov 2015) say: FPU Flags Affected C1 Set to 0 if stack underflow occurred. Set if result was rounded up; cleared otherwise. C0, C2, C3

[valgrind] [Bug 352549] Valgrind (whether with memchek or callgrind) crashes with "unhandled instruction bytes"

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=352549 Julian Seward changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[valgrind] [Bug 368791] unhandled amd64-linux syscall: 167 (swapon)

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=368791 --- Comment #3 from Julian Seward --- Hmm, we should pull those wrappers about of being mips64-linux specific bucket and make them linux-general instead. Also it looks like they are missing a PRE_MEM_RASCIIZ call on the path

[valgrind] [Bug 368791] unhandled amd64-linux syscall: 167 (swapon)

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=368791 --- Comment #4 from Julian Seward --- s/about of being/out of the -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

[valgrind] [Bug 368507] valgrind throws std::bad_alloc on memory allocations larger than 34255421416 bytes

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=368507 --- Comment #3 from Julian Seward --- The primary_map array, I mean. I didn't mean the whole 128GB needs to be zeroed out at startup. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

[valgrind] [Bug 368507] valgrind throws std::bad_alloc on memory allocations larger than 34255421416 bytes

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=368507 --- Comment #2 from Julian Seward --- In the trunk right now we have N_PRIMARY_BITS = 20, which according to the svn log makes the maximum usable memory amount be 64G. That was done at end-Jan 2013 and should surely be in 3.10 and

[valgrind] [Bug 368419] Perf Events ioctls not implemented

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=368419 --- Comment #2 from Julian Seward --- Keno, thank you for the patch. It looks OK, apart from this fragment + case VKI_PERF_EVENT_IOC_SET_FILTER: { + char *filter = (char *)ARG3; +

[valgrind] [Bug 367995] Integration of memcheck with custom memory allocator

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=367995 Julian Seward changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jsew...@acm.org --- Comment

[valgrind] [Bug 367543] bt/btc/btr/bts x86/x86_64 instructions are poorly-handled wrt flags

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=367543 --- Comment #1 from Julian Seward --- The Intel documentation has changed, it seems. The Nov 2007 docs say (about BT) The CF flag contains the value of the selected bit. The OF, SF, ZF, AF, and PF flags are undefined. The Jan

[valgrind] [Bug 366817] VALGRIND_MEMPOOL_CHANGE has a performance bug

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=366817 --- Comment #1 from Julian Seward --- Do you have a suggested patch that we could look at? That would be helpful. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

[valgrind] [Bug 322935] disInstr(arm): unhandled instruction: 0xF1010200, valgrind: Unrecognised instruction on Raspbian

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=322935 Julian Seward changed: What|Removed |Added CC||noloa...@gmail.com ---

[valgrind] [Bug 366464] disInstr(arm): unhandled instruction: 0xF1010200

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=366464 Julian Seward changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[valgrind] [Bug 322935] disInstr(arm): unhandled instruction: 0xF1010200, valgrind: Unrecognised instruction on Raspbian

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=322935 --- Comment #27 from Julian Seward --- This keeps cropping up, for example most recently in bug 366464. Maybe I should explain more why this isn't supported. It's because we don't have a feasible way to do it. Valgrind's JIT

[valgrind] [Bug 366345] Dirty compile from m_libcbase.c and vgdb-invoker-ptrace.c

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=366345 --- Comment #3 from Julian Seward --- With the trunk, gcc-5.3 -O3 (note, default trunk settings are -O2), on amd64-linux, I get only one warning: m_aspacemgr/aspacemgr-linux.c: In function ‘vgPlain_am_munmap_valgrind’:

[valgrind] [Bug 366237] pextrw - Unrecoginzed instruction

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=366237 Julian Seward changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |INVALID

[valgrind] [Bug 366142] Illegal opcode _mm_maskload_ps

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=366142 Julian Seward changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |UNMAINTAINED

[valgrind] [Bug 368412] False positive result for altivec capability check

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=368412 Julian Seward changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[valgrind] [Bug 366079] FPXX Support for MIPS32 Valgrind

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=366079 --- Comment #7 from Julian Seward --- Petar, is it possible you could test/land the follow-on patches in comment 5 and comment 6? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

[valgrind] [Bug 366035] valgrind misses buffer overflow, segfaults in malloc in localtime

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=366035 --- Comment #12 from Julian Seward --- Philippe, is there anything we can or should do here? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

[valgrind] [Bug 364948] Add IBM ISA 3.0 support, patch set 5

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=364948 Julian Seward changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED

[valgrind] [Bug 353370] RDRAND amd64->IR: unhandled instruction bytes: 0x48 0xF 0xC7 0xF0 0x72 0x4 0xFF 0xC9

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=353370 Julian Seward changed: What|Removed |Added CC||k...@kinomoto.me --- Comment

[valgrind] [Bug 365208] valgrind stuck after redirecting "memcpy"

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=365208 --- Comment #6 from Julian Seward --- Peter, can you re-run with --trace-signals=yes --trace-syscalls=yes --trace-flags=1000 --trace-notbelow=1 ? That might give some more information. What CPU is this running on? -- You are

[valgrind] [Bug 365258] Reading syms from /valgrind/lib/valgrind/memcheck-arm-linux bject doesn't have a dynamic symbol table

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=365258 --- Comment #7 from Julian Seward --- *** Bug 365686 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

[valgrind] [Bug 365686] Process terminating with default action of signal 4 (SIGILL): dumping core

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=365686 Julian Seward changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE

[valgrind] [Bug 365750] Valgrind fails on binary with .text section not in default place

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=365750 Julian Seward changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jsew...@acm.org --- Comment

[valgrind] [Bug 365325] unhandled instruction bytes: 0xF 0xC7 0xF0 0x89 0x6 0xF 0x42 0xC1

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=365325 Julian Seward changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE

[valgrind] [Bug 365258] Reading syms from /valgrind/lib/valgrind/memcheck-arm-linux bject doesn't have a dynamic symbol table

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=365258 --- Comment #6 from Julian Seward --- (In reply to rudici.cazeao from comment #5) > What should "--host" be set to? I think you have it set correctly. But you need to remove CFLAGS=-static and basically forget about changing the

[valgrind] [Bug 364948] Add IBM ISA 3.0 support, patch set 5

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=364948 --- Comment #10 from Julian Seward --- Carl, can this land now? Is there anything else that needs to happen before that? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

[valgrind] [Bug 361226] s390x: risbgn (EC59) not implemented

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=361226 Julian Seward changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED

[valgrind] [Bug 356112] mips: replace addi with addiu

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=356112 Julian Seward changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mips3...@gmail.com -- You

[valgrind] [Bug 361405] disInstr(ppc): unhandled instruction: 0xFF81010C

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=361405 --- Comment #1 from Julian Seward --- Mathieu, what processor was this running on? And is this a 32- or 64-bit process? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

[valgrind] [Bug 358620] ARM: unhandled syscall: 357

https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=358620 --- Comment #8 from Julian Seward --- (In reply to Jeffrey Walton from comment #6) Jeffrey, can you please objdump -d the relevant .so and find the failing instruction? And/or try again with the trunk? A bunch of 32 bit ARMv8 insns

  1   2   >