On 11/29/2016 06:48 PM, Wuweijia wrote:
> I compile a demo testcase with gcc 4.9 , run it in aarch64 server with
> valgrind . valgrind report there is some memory error as below. I do not
> think that it maybe a problem.
The testAlgo.cpp that was in the attached testcase.rar compiles to less
tha
I compile a demo testcase with gcc 4.9 , run it in aarch64 server with valgrind
. valgrind report there is some memory error as below. I do not think that it
maybe a problem.
==6494== 1 errors in context 1 of 4:
==6494== Use of uninitialised value of size 4
==6494==at 0x1089F8: main (testAlg
Super - thanks so much. Working on small emergency so will be able to get back
to this on Saturday. Fingers crossed.
Danny
On 29/11/2016, at 8:19 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:
>> For -march I've tried 'native', 'pentiumpro' and 'core2'.
>> When compiling for valgrind, also -O0.
>
> Well native is de
On 29/11/16 12:10, Danny Wilson wrote:
> For -march I've tried 'native', 'pentiumpro' and 'core2'.
> When compiling for valgrind, also -O0.
Well native is definitely not going to work, and core2 might be pushing
it, but pentiumpro should be fine. To be honest just leaving out -march
and -mcpu s
Hi Tom,
For -march I've tried 'native', 'pentiumpro' and 'core2'.
When compiling for valgrind, also -O0.
# cat /etc/redhat-release
CentOS release 6.6 (Final)
# uname -a
Linux dvstor5 3.10.80-1.el6.elrepo.i686 #1 SMP Sun Jun 7 08:15:14 EDT 2015 i686
i686 i386 GNU/Linux
Danny
On 29/11/2016, at
Hi Jeff,
Thanks, I'll give it a shot!
From the previous messages in this thread, the target machine is an 6500 series
i5. When rebuilding gcc, what value for -march would be appropriate?
Danny
On 29/11/2016, at 12:35 PM, Jeff Hammond wrote:
> Based upon your prior report showing the illegal
On 29/11/16 09:42, Alex Bligh wrote:
>> On 29 Nov 2016, at 01:29, Danny Wilson wrote:
>>
>> Hi Alex, rebuilding the standard libraries is a little beyond our scope (and
>> I'd figure it unlikely that such a basic function of the c++ library had a
>> memory leak. Something like that would be we
Danny,
> On 29 Nov 2016, at 01:29, Danny Wilson wrote:
>
> Hi Alex, rebuilding the standard libraries is a little beyond our scope (and
> I'd figure it unlikely that such a basic function of the c++ library had a
> memory leak. Something like that would be well published). As Tom pointed
>
