On 04/06/2015 11:22 AM, Andrew Johnson wrote:
...
> * Which version of the header we would include? On RHEL 6.6 I have
> valgrind-3.8.1 installed, but I see the latest release is 3.10.1; does
> the include file need to match the valgrind version? I assume not given
> their instructions for it, but is it guaranteed to be both backwards and
> forwards-compatible? Major version only? My version doesn't have 64-bit
> Windows support but does have 32-bit MS, Cygwin and MinGW.
I'll investigate.
As a fallback, how about "epicsValgrind.h" with a NVALGRIND-like
disabling macro?
> * Would we normally define NVALGRIND, so you'd have to explicitly turn
> it on for debugging (maybe in our debug builds), or not and leave the
> full macros in always?
I'm inclined to enable it by default for all targets. The overhead is
small and would only appear in code paths which do allocation.
> Anyone else want to comment on this idea?
- References:
- include valgrind.h in Base? Michael Davidsaver
- Re: include valgrind.h in Base? Andrew Johnson
- Navigate by Date:
- Prev:
Re: include valgrind.h in Base? Andrew Johnson
- Next:
Re: include valgrind.h in Base? J. Lewis Muir
- Index:
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
<2015>
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
- Navigate by Thread:
- Prev:
Re: include valgrind.h in Base? Andrew Johnson
- Next:
Re: include valgrind.h in Base? J. Lewis Muir
- Index:
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
<2015>
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
|