http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24549 --- Comment #8 from Julian Seward <jseward(a)acm.org> 2010-10-19 07:13:01 CDT --- (In reply to comment #7)
We use signal stacks for this reason. [...]
Well, fair enough. Nevertheless it does cause problems when Valgrinding Windows apps on Wine, for two reasons * the errors need to be suppressed, which is extra effort, hassle, etc, and can also be slow if it happens millions of times * when the data is read from below %esp, Memcheck's default rules assume the data is initialised [1]. Hence if the stored value was uninitialised it will be reloaded as initialised, so an outside chance of false negatives. I looked at the fn and it doesn't look difficult to ensure there is no below-%esp accesses. Is there some reason why the function has this particular below-%esp accesses, or is it just an accident of history? [1] Yes, I know this sounds stupid. See http://www.valgrind.org/docs/manual/mc-manual.html#mc-manual.together 8th bullet point for rationale. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.winehq.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email Do not reply to this email, post in Bugzilla using the above URL to reply. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are watching all bug changes.