From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 50476 invoked by alias); 9 Dec 2015 10:02:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 50392 invoked by uid 89); 9 Dec 2015 10:02:02 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_MXURI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail.ud10.udmedia.de Received: from ud10.udmedia.de (HELO mail.ud10.udmedia.de) (194.117.254.50) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 09 Dec 2015 10:01:59 +0000 Received: (qmail 14958 invoked from network); 9 Dec 2015 11:01:56 +0100 Received: from ip5b41f88a.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de (HELO x4) (ud10?360p3@91.65.248.138) by mail.ud10.udmedia.de with ESMTPSA (ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted, authenticated); 9 Dec 2015 11:01:56 +0100 Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2015 10:02:00 -0000 From: Markus Trippelsdorf To: Martin =?utf-8?B?TGnFoWth?= Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gerald@pfeifer.com Subject: Re: [DOC, PATCH] Mention --enable-valgrind-annotations in install.texi Message-ID: <20151209100155.GA317@x4> References: <5666FE18.1070306@suse.cz> <5667F562.7070306@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <5667F562.7070306@suse.cz> X-SW-Source: 2015-12/txt/msg00968.txt.bz2 On 2015.12.09 at 10:33 +0100, Martin Liška wrote: > On 12/09/2015 12:47 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > > On Tue, 8 Dec 2015, Martin Liška wrote: > >> I would like to add a missing configure option. > > > > +Specify that the compiler should interact with valgrind runtime, where > > +selected invalid memory reads are marked as false positives and > > +garbage collected memory is properly marked for proper interaction. > > > > 2. "interact...for proper interaction" and "properly marked for > > proper" feels a little confusing to me. That is, I had to think > > twice. Any chance you can make this a little simpler to understand? > > Sure, please read v2. > > +@item --enable-valgrind-annotations > +Specify that the compiler should interact with valgrind runtime, > +where selected memory-related operations are marked as valid. > +There operations are safe and should not become a candidate > +of an undefined behavior. Sorry, but this is simply awful ;-). How about: Mark selected memory related operations in the compiler when run under valgrind to suppress false positives. -- Markus