[mpich-discuss] Mpich failing electric-fence check

[Balaji, Pavan]

Huiwei,

Your fix is wrong.  Please see the previous email I sent.

  — Pavan

On Mar 8, 2014, at 4:50 PM, Lu, Huiwei <huiweilu at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

> We have found one malloc(0) line in MPID_nem_init and fixed that.
> The change should be available in tomorrow’s nightly build tarball.
> http://www.mpich.org/static/downloads/nightly/master/mpich/
> 
> Thanks for reporting.
> —
> Huiwei Lu
> Postdoc Appointee
> Mathematics and Computer Science Division, Argonne National Laboratory
> http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~huiweilu/
> 
> On Mar 7, 2014, at 10:33 AM, Matthieu Dorier <matthieu.dorier at irisa.fr> wrote:
> 
>> I didn't know electric-fence was so old. 
>> I managed to find the corruption with valgrind anyway, but it was just in case someone else wanted to use electric-fence.
>> 
>> Matthieu Dorier 
>> PhD student at ENS Rennes 
>> http://people.irisa.fr/Matthieu.Dorier 
>> ----- Mail original -----
>>> De: "Rob Latham" <robl at mcs.anl.gov>
>>> À: discuss at mpich.org
>>> Envoyé: Vendredi 7 Mars 2014 16:35:27
>>> Objet: Re: [mpich-discuss] Mpich failing electric-fence check
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 03/07/2014 09:25 AM, Jed Brown wrote:
>>>> Matthieu Dorier <matthieu.dorier at irisa.fr> writes:
>>>>> ElectricFence Aborting: Allocating 0 bytes, probably a bug.
>>>> 
>>>> I would argue that ElectricFence is wrong here.  The standard guarantees
>>>> that malloc(0) succeeds and it is useful to simplify code and to test
>>>> for matching free in cases where a positive size is rare.
>>> 
>>> It wouldn't suprise me to find ElecritcFence buggy.  It was a great tool
>>> back in the day but Perens stopped maintaining it a decade ago, and
>>> there seem to be some half-hearted attempts by the community to keep it
>>> active (debian has some updates from... somewhere.
>>> http://duma.sourceforge.net/ might work?
>>> 
>>> I think everyone around here uses valgrind anyway.
>>> 
>>> ==rob
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> C99 §7.20.3: If the size of the space requested is zero, the behavior is
>>>> implementation-
>>>> defined: either a null pointer is returned, or the behavior is as if the
>>>> size were some
>>>> nonzero value, except that the returned pointer shall not be used to access
>>>> an object.
>>>> 
>>>> Either way, the returned pointer can be passed to free.  Are you aware
>>>> of current malloc implementations which violate the above?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> discuss mailing list     discuss at mpich.org
>>>> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe:
>>>> https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Rob Latham
>>> Mathematics and Computer Science Division
>>> Argonne National Lab, IL USA
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> discuss mailing list     discuss at mpich.org
>>> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe:
>>> https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list     discuss at mpich.org
>> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe:
>> https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list     discuss at mpich.org
> To manage subscription options or unsubscribe:
> https://lists.mpich.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss