From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 19E9F3858439; Tue, 19 Dec 2023 16:53:26 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 19E9F3858439
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1703004806;
	bh=BEXuTP3Pe9NPdGFw452of/3Ev+BcuGfW7QxCV9E/aKs=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=P28N+pXCiLMqQTm6jp77VELQI++WBReyHCMDwc7pn6Kk5b7Zz3kr453PHPWCpUcCt
	 b5Zse+akpSsxERepvYpm8VfT7teMycNVBQYEpL+4qd43M4dtuRGYl+3UmiFUZXjIgh
	 PjWCXic5ptuAogWd97UQ563YwQHzSRP6f45q/Z9U=
From: "dcb314 at hotmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/113045] armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabihf: valgrind error
 during build of libcc1
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2023 16:53:25 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-113045-4-GeWT09Y6Iu@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-113045-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-113045-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D113045

--- Comment #18 from David Binderman <dcb314 at hotmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #17)
> I am surprised valgrind memcheck doesn't produce more output, normally it
> would tell you why & where it found the address invalid.=20

The valgrind output I gave originally looks to be in the usual valgrind for=
mat
to me.
Perhaps you are assuming some other debugging tool like asan or ubsan ?

> I assume somehow
> valgrind memcheck believes it is reading past the end of a data buffer,
> while the code assumes this is fine because it will mask off the bits it
> won't use.

valgrind doesn't normally produce an error for copying around un-initialised
bytes.

However, it will produce an error if those bytes are used in a decision
like an if statement.

Your unconfirmed assumption agrees with mine, though.=