https://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=47125
--- Comment #3 from Austin English austinenglish@gmail.com --- (In reply to jeffersoncarpenter2 from comment #2)
(In reply to Austin English from comment #1)
Does it actually cause a problem? I'm fairly certain that's expected behavior.
Expected behavior for what reason? I don't know if this is a problem (valgrind fails to recognize an instruction later and kills the program, then there's an invalid write reported from the SIGILL handler), but if it were expected and correct behavior, then why print a warning?
From loader/preloader.c:
* To do this, we implement our own shared object loader that reserves memory * that is important to Wine, and then loads the main binary and its ELF * interpreter. * * We will try to set up the stack and memory area so that the program that * loads after us (eg. the wine binary) never knows we were here, except that * areas of memory it needs are already magically reserved. * * The following memory areas are important to Wine: * 0x00000000 - 0x00110000 the DOS area * 0x80000000 - 0x81000000 the shared heap * ??? - ??? the PE binary load address (usually starting at 0x00400000)