Does it help to run with
--expensive-definedness-checks=yes
?
You might also try 3.14 GIT version, as some work was recently done
in the area of definedness checking and the above option was also
extended with a 3rd value (auto), which is less expensive.
Philippe
On Wed, 2017-12-20 at 15:37 +0000, Jason Vas Dias wrote:
> Good day -
>
> Please could anyone explain why valgrind v3.13.0, built for x86_64 under Linux
> (RHEL 7.4), is complaining about
> "Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)"
> in this case - I cannot see how any memory accessed by this
> code is uninitialized, and inspecting the V bits and shadow
> registers also does not show any 0 bits - the program always
> stops with the above error, at the line
>
> ==26770== Thread 4:
> ==26770== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)
> ==26770== at 0x5C3EF46: lround (s_llround.c:42)
>
> which is entered via the line in our code:
>
> const uint32_t delta_time = uint32_t(std::lround(sensor.time * 2e9));
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> This is a call to GLIBC v2.17's lround, in glibc source code file:
> sysdeps/ieee754/dbl-64/wordsize-64/s_llround.c,
> @ line 28:
> long long int
> __llround (double x)
> { // I recompiled glibc to add initializers for
> // these auto variables, but it made no difference:
> int32_t j0=0;
> int64_t i0=0;
> long long int result=0;
> int sign=0;
>
> EXTRACT_WORDS64 (i0, x);
> j0 = ((i0 >> 52) & 0x7ff) - 0x3ff;
> sign = i0 < 0 ? -1 : 1;
> i0 &= UINT64_C(0xfffffffffffff);
> i0 |= UINT64_C(0x10000000000000);
> @ line 42:
> ==> if (j0 < (int32_t) (8 * sizeof (long long int)) - 1)
> {
>
> EXTRACT_WORDS64 resolves to an asm statement defined in
> sysdeps/x86_64/fpu/math_private.h:
> /* Direct movement of float into integer register. */
> #define EXTRACT_WORDS64(i, d)
> \
> do {
> \
> int64_t i_;
> \
> asm (MOVD " %1, %0" : "=rm" (i_) : "x" ((double) (d)));
> \
> (i) = i_;
> \
> } while (0)
>
> .
>
> When I run valgrind with options:
>
> --tool=memcheck --track-origins=yes --vgdb-shadow-registers=yes
> --vgdb=yes \
> --vgdb-error=0 my_program ....
>
> it invariably stops at the same s_llround.c:42 place shown above .
>
> Inspecting the valid bits for both 'j0' (in glibc's __llround) and
> 'sensor.time'
> (in our code) in GDB shows ALL VALID BITS set :
>
> (gdb is stopped at s_llround.c, line 42):
>
> (gdb) p &j0
> Address requested for identifier "j0" which is in register $rdx
> (gdb) p/x $rdxs1
> $1 = 0xffffffff
> (gdb) p j0
> $1 = 6
>
> // so the j0 variable appears to be valid, according to valgrind's
> shadow register V-bits.
> // So why did valgrind stop at that particular line, where no variable
> or memory other
> // than j0 is being accessed ?
>
> (gdb) up
> ... ( back to our code: delta_time =
> uint32_t(std::lround(sensor.time * 2e9));
> ... sensor is a structure reference variable
> ... )
>
> (gdb) p &sensor->time
> $16 = (double *) 0x10ea9088
> (gdb) mo xb 0x10ea9088 8
> ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff
> 0x10EA9088: 0xef 0xd9 0x0e 0x32 0x57 0x0e 0x6a
> 0x3e
>
> So how can I tell which valid bit valgrind is complaining about being 0 here
> ?
> No relevant valid bits appear to be 0 ?
>
> Yes, not all bits for the whole 40 byte 'sensor' structure are valid
> yet (it is in the processof being constructed here) but the 8 bytes
> referenced by 'sensor.time' ARE VALID , and no other bits can be
> accessed by the statement at which valgrind stops.
>
> It just says at the end:
> ==26770== Uninitialised value was created by a stack allocation
> ==26770== at 0x4E2979: main (Main.cpp:88)
>
> Yes, the 'sensor' structure is part of a 200MB array created at
> program initialization , which is populated by SPI + GPIO + DMA reads
> from an embedded device, in the multi-threaded program. But the memory
> being accessed by the statement above HAS ALL VALID BITS SET, so I
> cannot see what valgrind is complaining about here .
>
> I'd really appreciate some kind of '--show-valid-bits-and-addresses'
> option to valgrind, which would make it display exactly the valid bits
> it found to be 0, and which memory addresses / registers they
> correspond to .
>
> I believe the above behavior represents a BUG in latest version of
> valgrind, because
> NO RELEVANT VALID BITS ARE ZERO , AFAICS.
>
> valgrind-3.12.0 (the RHEL-7.4 default version) displays the same behavior ,
> and
> stops at the same place with the same error.
>
> I'd really like to test our program with valgrind, but false positives such as
> the above are blocking this - I am having to abandon valgrind testing because
> of
> this issue , because valgrind appears to be too buggy to use. The program runs
> fine outside of valgrind without any errors (usually) - but as I am changing
> it
> I'd like to run it under valgrind as part of standard automated testing.
>
> Any ideas / suggestions how to resolve this false positive, or proof that it
> is
> not a false positive, would be most gratefully received.
>
> Thanks in advance & Best Regards .
> Jason Vas Dias
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> _______________________________________________
> Valgrind-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/valgrind-users
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Valgrind-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/valgrind-users
