[#3358] Fwd: fastcgi & continuations (Re: Idea: Webshare) — Patrick May <patrick@...>
Hello,
8 messages
2004/09/09
[#3359] Re: Fwd: fastcgi & continuations (Re: Idea: Webshare)
— Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net>
2004/09/09
Patrick May (patrick@hexane.org) wrote:
[#3419] Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0 — Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
Hello list,
19 messages
2004/09/17
[#3422] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— ts <decoux@...>
2004/09/17
>>>>> "A" == Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org> writes:
[#3423] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
2004/09/17
On Friday 17 Sep 2004 12:01, ts wrote:
[#3424] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— ts <decoux@...>
2004/09/17
>>>>> "A" == Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org> writes:
[#3425] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
2004/09/17
On Friday 17 Sep 2004 12:37, ts wrote:
[#3426] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— ts <decoux@...>
2004/09/17
>>>>> "A" == Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org> writes:
[#3428] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
2004/09/17
On Friday 17 Sep 2004 13:05, ts wrote:
[#3429] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— ts <decoux@...>
2004/09/17
>>>>> "A" == Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org> writes:
[#3430] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
2004/09/17
On Friday 17 Sep 2004 13:30, ts wrote:
[#3431] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— ts <decoux@...>
2004/09/17
>>>>> "A" == Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org> writes:
[#3432] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
2004/09/17
On Friday 17 Sep 2004 13:50, ts wrote:
[#3433] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
2004/09/17
There is a minor flaw in my analysis toward the end; ignore previous email
[#3434] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
2004/09/17
On Friday 17 Sep 2004 13:50, ts wrote:
[#3437] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
2004/09/17
Hi,
Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
From:
Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
Date:
2004-09-17 10:24:45 UTC
List:
ruby-core #3419
Hello list,
For a while now while developing a ruby application, I have occasionally seen
[BUG] unknown node type 0
which I understand is gc related.
The exact, unpredictable symtoms have been described on the ruby-talk ML
thread starting at
<200409041104.53545.andrew@walrond.org>
Yesterday, when it started happening again, I build the latest stable snapshot
with CFLAGS='-g -O0' and ran Valgrind 2.2.0 on my ruby script (rubyx):
valgrind --tool=memcheck ruby ./rubyx
I attach the full valgrind log, but in short, the result is some 28,000 hits
in gc.c. While I am sure alot of the reports are false positives, the very
first report does seem to indicate a simple uninitialized variable bug:
==28001== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)
==28001== at 0x806FF18: is_pointer_to_heap (gc.c:591)
==28001== by 0x806FEE1: mark_locations_array (gc.c:609)
==28001== by 0x80710F8: rb_gc (gc.c:1328)
==28001== by 0x806FBAC: rb_newobj (gc.c:376)
The global static variables lomem and himem in gc.c do not seem to be
initialised before use:
$ grep -E \(lo\|hi\)mem gc.c
static RVALUE *himem, *lomem;
if (lomem == 0 || lomem > p) lomem = p;
if (himem < pend) himem = pend;
if (p < lomem || p > himem) return Qfalse;
I assume the fix would be
static RVALUE *himem=0, *lomem=0;
I wonder if somebody familiar with gc.c might check my analysis, and perhaps
also check the attached valgrind log for other potential problems?
Hope this is useful
Andrew Walrond
Attachments (1)
valgrind.log.bz2
(1.27 KB, Archive)