From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 v2] valgrind: ignore ldso errors Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:09:21 -0500 Message-ID: <20090121190921.GC21686@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20090120141932.GB10688@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20090120232439.GA17746@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20090121001551.GB18169@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20090121003739.GA18373@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Schindelin X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jan 21 20:11:30 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LPiTR-0002cY-QG for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 20:10:50 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753102AbZAUTJY (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:09:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753085AbZAUTJY (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:09:24 -0500 Received: from peff.net ([208.65.91.99]:56145 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752926AbZAUTJX (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:09:23 -0500 Received: (qmail 16907 invoked by uid 107); 21 Jan 2009 19:09:29 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:09:29 -0500 Received: by coredump.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:09:21 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 02:36:40AM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Only change vs v1: adds Addr4 suppression, so that ld.so "errors" > are ignored on 32-bit, too. I don't think it is wrong to add the extra suppression, but out of curiosity, did you actually trigger it? I tested the original on both 32- and 64-bit platforms, and that was what made me create the original (i.e., for some reason my 32-bit platform did not need the same ld.so suppression). -Peff