-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Valgrind-users] Difference in Behaviour between 3.10 and 3.11
> The output from readelf is below, as you'll see there is a .eh_frame section.
> Is there any dependency on how the Valgrind applications and libraries are
> compiled?
Well ye
> The output from readelf is below, as you'll see there is a .eh_frame section.
> Is there any dependency on how the Valgrind applications and libraries are
> compiled?
Well yes, but in this case it can't even unwind out of a library that is
provided as part of Valgrind itself. So I don't thin
cific)
-Julian Seward wrote: -
To: simon.g...@doulos.com, valgrind-users@lists.sourceforge.net
From: Julian Seward
Date: 07/21/2016 03:22PM
Subject: Re: [Valgrind-users] Difference in Behaviour between 3.10 and 3.11
This is most likely a problem caused by missing unwind info on the
This is most likely a problem caused by missing unwind info on the 3.11
vgpreload_memcheck-arm-linux.so. What does
readelf -S vgpreload_memcheck-arm-linux.so
say about them? In particular, do they both have .eh_frame, .extab and
.exidx sections? Basically you need either .eh_frame or (.extab
Hi All
I wonder if anyone can help. I've been running some tests on a trivial
application running in Linux on an ARM Cortex-A9 based device. I see a
difference in the output between the Valgrind 3.10 release and the more recent
3.11 version. As you can see from the log snippets below you can se
