Re: [Valgrind-users] unhandled instruction bytes: 0xC5 0xF9 0x6E 0x45

2016-12-06 Thread Danny Wilson
Hi Jeff, I've downloaded and compiled gcc 4.4.7 (same as stock Centos version). Unfortunately, the program no longer compiles, giving an error "This platform does not support exception propagation". (I don't know what that means). Any suggestion on how to get around this? Thanks, Danny /home/

Re: [Valgrind-users] unhandled instruction bytes: 0xC5 0xF9 0x6E 0x45

2016-12-06 Thread Danny Wilson
Hi Tom, I omitted -march (didn't have -mcpu), but unfortunately exactly same error. Now recompiling g++ 4.4.7 from source as per suggestion from Jeff Hammond. Danny On 29/11/2016, at 8:19 PM, Tom Hughes wrote: >> For -march I've tried 'native', 'pentiumpro' and 'core2'. >> When compiling for v

Re: [Valgrind-users] unhandled instruction bytes: 0xC5 0xF9 0x6E 0x45

2016-11-29 Thread Danny Wilson
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

Re: [Valgrind-users] unhandled instruction bytes: 0xC5 0xF9 0x6E 0x45

2016-11-29 Thread Tom Hughes
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

Re: [Valgrind-users] unhandled instruction bytes: 0xC5 0xF9 0x6E 0x45

2016-11-29 Thread Danny Wilson
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

Re: [Valgrind-users] unhandled instruction bytes: 0xC5 0xF9 0x6E 0x45

2016-11-29 Thread Danny Wilson
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

Re: [Valgrind-users] unhandled instruction bytes: 0xC5 0xF9 0x6E 0x45

2016-11-29 Thread Tom Hughes
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

Re: [Valgrind-users] unhandled instruction bytes: 0xC5 0xF9 0x6E 0x45

2016-11-29 Thread Alex Bligh
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 >

Re: [Valgrind-users] unhandled instruction bytes: 0xC5 0xF9 0x6E 0x45

2016-11-28 Thread Jeff Hammond
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 5:29 PM, Danny Wilson wrote: > On 28/11/2016, at 8:07 PM, Alex Bligh wrote: > > > >> On 27 Nov 2016, at 16:09, Danny Wilson wrote: > >> > >> The target machines uses an i5 CPU but the build machine is a core2 duo > which is why I chose 'native'. Not sure that was the rig

Re: [Valgrind-users] unhandled instruction bytes: 0xC5 0xF9 0x6E 0x45

2016-11-28 Thread Danny Wilson
On 28/11/2016, at 8:07 PM, Alex Bligh wrote: > >> On 27 Nov 2016, at 16:09, Danny Wilson wrote: >> >> The target machines uses an i5 CPU but the build machine is a core2 duo >> which is why I chose 'native'. Not sure that was the right choice but it >> works (without Valgrind). >> >> I've ju

Re: [Valgrind-users] unhandled instruction bytes: 0xC5 0xF9 0x6E 0x45

2016-11-28 Thread Alex Bligh
> On 27 Nov 2016, at 16:09, Danny Wilson wrote: > > The target machines uses an i5 CPU but the build machine is a core2 duo which > is why I chose 'native'. Not sure that was the right choice but it works > (without Valgrind). > > I've just tried -march as 'native', 'core2', and 'pentiumpro'

Re: [Valgrind-users] unhandled instruction bytes: 0xC5 0xF9 0x6E 0x45

2016-11-27 Thread Danny Wilson
The target machines uses an i5 CPU but the build machine is a core2 duo which is why I chose 'native'. Not sure that was the right choice but it works (without Valgrind). I've just tried -march as 'native', 'core2', and 'pentiumpro'. All have the same result. (and you are right: the SIGILL h

Re: [Valgrind-users] unhandled instruction bytes: 0xC5 0xF9 0x6E 0x45

2016-11-27 Thread Tom Hughes
On 27/11/16 10:28, Danny Wilson wrote: > The build machine is a core2 duo running 32-bit Centos 6.6 and custom > kernel 3.10. > > I recompiled the app using --march=native and --march=pentiumpro, but > got the same error. Don't use -march=native - that is telling the compiler to use everything m

Re: [Valgrind-users] unhandled instruction bytes: 0xC5 0xF9 0x6E 0x45

2016-11-27 Thread Danny Wilson
Hi Jeff, I put a SIGILL handler in. Running normally without valgrind shows the signal is caught and ignored (when kill -ILL is sent) But it seems that valgrind is disabling my signal handler. Running under valgrind still exits with > Valgrind will now raise a SIGILL signal which will proba

Re: [Valgrind-users] unhandled instruction bytes: 0xC5 0xF9 0x6E 0x45

2016-11-27 Thread Danny Wilson
The build machine is a core2 duo running 32-bit Centos 6.6 and custom kernel 3.10. I recompiled the app using --march=native and --march=pentiumpro, but got the same error. I'll try the SIGKILL handler now. Danny > vex x86->IR: unhandled instruction bytes: 0xC5 0xF9 0x6E 0x45 > ==29426== valg

Re: [Valgrind-users] unhandled instruction bytes: 0xC5 0xF9 0x6E 0x45

2016-11-27 Thread Tom Hughes
On 27/11/16 03:46, Danny Wilson wrote: > It is a huge application, 1.5M lines not including big external dependencies > like ACE/TAO. Porting over to 64bit mode would probably take months. Any > other suggestion? Perhaps disabling the generation of the offending AVX > instructions with some co

Re: [Valgrind-users] unhandled instruction bytes: 0xC5 0xF9 0x6E 0x45

2016-11-26 Thread Danny Wilson
Hi Tom, Thanks for the response. It is a huge application, 1.5M lines not including big external dependencies like ACE/TAO. Porting over to 64bit mode would probably take months. Any other suggestion? Perhaps disabling the generation of the offending AVX instructions with some compiler flag?

Re: [Valgrind-users] unhandled instruction bytes: 0xC5 0xF9 0x6E 0x45

2016-11-26 Thread Jeffrey Walton
> Thanks for the response. > > It is a huge application, 1.5M lines not including big external dependencies > like ACE/TAO. Porting over to 64bit mode would probably take months. Any > other suggestion? Perhaps disabling the generation of the offending AVX > instructions with some compiler flag

Re: [Valgrind-users] unhandled instruction bytes: 0xC5 0xF9 0x6E 0x45

2016-11-26 Thread Tom Hughes
On 26/11/16 15:36, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 9:38 PM, Danny Wilson wrote: >> I am trying to find a memory leak in a large C++ program which utilizes >> multiple shared libraries. >> >> Unfortunately, valgrind fails with "unhandled instruction bytes: 0xC5 0xF9 >> 0x6E 0x45" >>

Re: [Valgrind-users] unhandled instruction bytes: 0xC5 0xF9 0x6E 0x45

2016-11-26 Thread Jeffrey Walton
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 9:38 PM, Danny Wilson wrote: > I am trying to find a memory leak in a large C++ program which utilizes > multiple shared libraries. > > Unfortunately, valgrind fails with "unhandled instruction bytes: 0xC5 0xF9 > 0x6E 0x45" > > It says the illegal instruction is inside std:

[Valgrind-users] unhandled instruction bytes: 0xC5 0xF9 0x6E 0x45

2016-11-25 Thread Danny Wilson
I am trying to find a memory leak in a large C++ program which utilizes multiple shared libraries. Unfortunately, valgrind fails with "unhandled instruction bytes: 0xC5 0xF9 0x6E 0x45" It says the illegal instruction is inside std::tr1::__detail, inside a standard library... Is there anything