{"thread":{"id":"17450","subject":"Status of my valgrind branch","startedAt":"2009-01-30T01:19:14Z","lastAt":"2009-01-30T01:19:14Z","messageCount":1,"participants":["Johannes Schindelin"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"102533","messageId":"alpine.DEB.1.00.0901300213590.3586@pacific.mpi-cbg.de","threadId":"17450","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Status of my valgrind branch","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2009-01-30T01:19:14Z","receivedAt":"2009-01-30T01:19:14Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nthe valgrind branch is not ready yet.  And it grew to 8 patches in the \nmeantime:\n\nhttp://repo.or.cz/w/git/dscho.git?a=log;h=c9486d38d070fefe39f90512e2e12d3a64eba1b3\n\nThere is one big problem I only realized today, when trying to catch that \nvalgrind bug [*1*]: in the suppression file, I introduced the \"...\" \nnotation, which is only available with valgrind 3.4.0.  Which was \npublished this month.\n\nSo I have to think about the issue a bit more, and maybe just claim that \nvalgrind 3.4.0 is required.  But maybe there are people who disagree with \nme saying that older valgrind should be supported.\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n\n[*1*] Turns out that the issue I was reporting happens with Ubuntu's zlib, \nwhich I erroneously thought would be pretty vanilla.  It is not: it was \ncompiled with \"-O3 -DUNALIGNED_OK\", both of which are required to hit the \nbug.\n\nStill, it is a bug in valgrind, I am pretty sure by now, as the byte is \nnot uninitialized as valgrind claims.\n\nOh, and I wasted a _lot_ of time on this today.\n"}]}