[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <006001ce3b02$a4d5a000$ee80e000$@net>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 19:29:37 -0500
From: "jfoug" <jfoug@....net>
To: <john-dev@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: RE: Segfaults probably caused by DEBUG code in memory.c
From: magnum Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 18:51
>
>Hopefully this is settled now. The root issue was this: without this,
Valgrind may tell you that a buffer >allocated in this or that line, in this
or that file[1], was busted in some other line and file[2]. But [1] was
>totally misleading, because that was just a much *earlier* call to
mem_alloc_tiny() where there was an actual >malloc() allocation going on
behind the scenes. Extremely confusing until I understood what was going on
and >added this stuff.
>
>So any time you are tracking a buffer problem down, be sure to use -DDEBUG.
This would work even better, by promoting memdbg, using the -DDEBUG and
setting MEMDBG_ON. That might even turn up errors quicker than valgrind,
but would not show everything valgrind does, of course.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
