| From: | "anarazel(at)anarazel(dot)de" <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: overlapping strncpy/memcpy errors via valgrind |
| Date: | 2013-02-17 18:52:46 |
| Message-ID: | da54cd4c-4cb9-46f8-950c-ce6efffbc918@email.android.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> schrieb:
>Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> writes:
>> Then, why isn't memcpy() skipped if the source and dest are the same?
>> It would be a micro-optimization but a valid one.
>
>No, it'd be more like a micro-pessimization, because the test would be
>wasted effort in the vast majority of calls. The *only* reason to do
>this would be to shut up valgrind, and that seems annoying.
>
>I wonder if anyone's tried filing a bug against valgrind to say that it
>shouldn't complain about this case.
You already need a suppression file to use valgrind sensibly, its easy enough to add it there. Perhaps we should add one to the tree?
---
Please excuse brevity and formatting - I am writing this on my mobile phone.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2013-02-17 19:31:44 | Re: overlapping strncpy/memcpy errors via valgrind |
| Previous Message | anarazel@anarazel.de | 2013-02-17 18:48:53 | Re: overlapping strncpy/memcpy errors via valgrind |