search for: deallocating

I repeatedly get a popup when running an old Windows 3.1 game on Ubuntu, Wine 0.9.59. It reads ... Memory BUG Deallocation of a locked memory block I can usually continue OK, but it's very annoying. Is there anything I can do about it? Thanks.

Hi All, ORC's new concurrent compilation model generates some interesting lifetime and thread safety questions around LLVMContext: We need multiple LLVMContexts (one per module in the simplest case, but at least one per thread), and the lifetime of each context depends on the execution path of the JIT'd code. We would like to deallocate contexts once all modules associated with them have

LTOCodeGenerator::addModule (which is wrapped by lto_codegen_add_module) takes an LTOModule as an argument and links the latter's llvm::Module into its own. It does not change the latter's llvm::Module. The lto_module_dispose API call destroys an LTOModule. This frees the LTOModule's llvm::Module, but also invalidates strings returned by, e.g., lto_module_get_symbol_name. I propose

On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 02:06:28PM -0700, Daniel Verkamp wrote: > From: Changpeng Liu <changpeng.liu at intel.com> > > In commit 88c85538, "virtio-blk: add discard and write zeroes features > to specification" (https://github.com/oasis-tcs/virtio-spec), the virtio There is some issues in this spec. For one using the multiple ranges also for write zeroes is rather

On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 02:06:28PM -0700, Daniel Verkamp wrote: > From: Changpeng Liu <changpeng.liu at intel.com> > > In commit 88c85538, "virtio-blk: add discard and write zeroes features > to specification" (https://github.com/oasis-tcs/virtio-spec), the virtio There is some issues in this spec. For one using the multiple ranges also for write zeroes is rather

Hi all, I've included an RFC for a heap profiler design I've been working on in conjunction with David Li. Please send any questions or feedback. For sanitizer folks, one area of feedback is on refactoring some of the *ASAN shadow setup code (see the Shadow Memory section). Thanks, Teresa RFC: Sanitizer-based Heap Profiler Summary This document provides an overview of an LLVM

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6636 Summary: Deallocation of a pointer not malloced Product: rsync Version: 3.0.6 Platform: PPC OS/Version: Mac OS X Status: NEW Severity: major Priority: P3 Component: core AssignedTo: wayned at samba.org ReportedBy: aaro at iki.fi

On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 2:27 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch at infradead.org> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 02:06:28PM -0700, Daniel Verkamp wrote: > > From: Changpeng Liu <changpeng.liu at intel.com> > > > > In commit 88c85538, "virtio-blk: add discard and write zeroes features > > to specification" (https://github.com/oasis-tcs/virtio-spec), the

Hi, So 9316 works and 9320 doesn't? How about latest SVN. I just ran everything in valgrind and saw no error at all. Can you give more info on how to reproduce (with speexenc)? Jean-Marc Le mercredi 22 juin 2005 ? 21:19 -0300, Dario Andrade a ?crit : > > > When updating the speex sources from svn tree, I found that the > following revision has corrupted the deallocation

When updating the speex sources from svn tree, I found that the following revision has corrupted the deallocation (segmentation fault): ------------------------------------------------------------------------ r9320 | jm | 2005-05-27 15:05:05 -0300 (Fri, 27 May 2005) | 2 lines Proper de-allocation When compiling with the 9316, everything works fine. but when I update with later

On 12/01/2014 11:14 AM, Andrew Trick wrote: > >> On Oct 21, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com >> <mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>> wrote: >> >> Sanjoy made a good point. We don't actually need a new variant of >> "invariant.start". Simply using an invariant.start with no uses >> gives us a notion

Hi, Teresa, This looks really useful. It seems like this general infrastructure could be useful for diagnosing places where we have a lot of false sharing too. This could be between cores, sockets, or devices. Looking forward, especially with HMM and support under Linux for transparent unified memory between CPUs and accelerators, I anticipate we'll end up looking for places where some

On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 11:28 PM Wenlei He <wenlei at fb.com> wrote: > This sounds very useful. We’ve improved and used memoro > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm47XsATelI> for memory profiling and > analysis, and we are also looking for ways to leverage memory profile for > PGO/FDO. I think having a common profiling infrastructure for analysis > tooling as well as

On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 6:30 PM Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 4:58 PM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I've included an RFC for a heap profiler design I've been working on in >> conjunction with David Li. Please send any questions or feedback. For >>

...d do something like this. I've been trying to work with this solution, but it does pose a problem. The problem is that we use an ExecutionEngine and set a memory manager with setJITMemoryManager on EngineBuilder. The problem is that this means when the ExecutionEngine is deallocated, it end up deallocating the memory manager. I can understand doing this when the code sets up it's own memory manager, but with an external memory manager, I'd expect LLVM not to deallocate that object for me. Is there a way to prevent this from happening? I can't keep the ExecutionEngine around here either,...

Up until now, freeing payloads on remote MST hubs that just had ports removed has almost never worked because we've been relying on port validation in order to stop us from accessing ports that have already been freed from memory, but ports which need their payloads released due to being removed will never be a valid part of the topology after they've been removed. Since we've

Hi, everyone, I'd like to propose adding a nofree function attribute to indicate that a function does not, directly or indirectly, call a memory-deallocation function (e.g., free, C++'s operator delete). Clang/LLVM can currently misoptimize functions that:  1. Have a reference argument.  2. Free the memory backing the object to which the reference is bound during the function's

Hi all, So I have finally finished the v1 of reflink for ocfs2. It has some bugs that I am still investigating, but the schema is almost there. So I'd like to send it out first for review. And Tristan and I will continue to work on the stability of the code. The general information for reflink, please see http://oss.oracle.com/osswiki/OCFS2/DesignDocs/Reflink. For the design doc, please

We are currently using the JIT (non-MC) to implement a REPL-like shell that needs to run in a long-lived process. During development, we noticed substantial memory-growth with increased lifetime of the JIT. In trying to eliminate that continuous memory growth, we did a few things, including making LLVMContext collect and free unused constants (detected by Value::uses_empty()). This dropped

I noticed that in the narrow band and wide band destroy functions only the main pointer is being freed. I think that it should be: void nb_decoder_destroy(void *state) { DecState *st; st=(DecState*)state; speex_free (st->inBuf); speex_free (st->excBuf); speex_free (st->innov); speex_free (st->interp_qlpc); speex_free (st->qlsp); speex_free