Am Sonntag, den 16.06.2013, 11:18 +0100 schrieb Justin Cormack: > On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Jens Gustedt wrote: > > BTW, I used valgrind to help me finding such stuff on initialization, > > but the tons of false positives that musl triggers because of the str > > functions and calloc are really a pain. > > It would be nice to ship a valgrind suppressions file shipped with > Musl to ignore these, I have always found it very helpful to have as a > part of the documentation in order to not worry about trying to work > out myself which are false positives when working with a project. You > can use valgrind --gen-suppressions to produce them, but I guess we > need to check that they are not in fact bugs! > > (The valgrind maintainers are also very responsive to issues) yes, I know about that possibility and already used this in the past. What would bother me more is that by switching of the check for strlen, e.g., valgrind wouldn't find real user code errors when I pass an uninitialized char[] to it. Switching off all the checks for the str*** functions would somehow be counter productive in the context of valgrind. Also for calloc I am not sure that when we switch off the false positive (where musl assumes a certain gcc behavior for what in general is UB) valgrind would still capture the fact that the malloced object is 0 initialized. If it doesn't we would get even more false positives. Jens -- :: INRIA Nancy Grand Est :: http://www.loria.fr/~gustedt/ :: :: AlGorille ::::::::::::::: office Nancy : +33 383593090 :: :: ICube :::::::::::::: office Strasbourg : +33 368854536 :: :: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: gsm France : +33 651400183 :: :: :::::::::::::::::::: gsm international : +49 15737185122 ::