Talk:Valgrind

message: Isn't a phrase like "It has an excellent reputation" without any kind of reference a highly POV statement?
Arthurrh 20:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the supporting references, check the list of projects! --vineeth 07:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  yeah this project is great. we use it at work all the time. Elie 19:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV issues

message: (2006-12-28) Just to let you know.  The purpose of selecting an article is both to point readers to the article and to highlight it to potential contributors.  It will remain on the portal for a week or so.  The previous selected article was GNU Radio. Gronky 16:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The selected article has now moved on.  The current selectee is Advanced Packaging Tool (apt-get). Gronky 15:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On [[Portal:Free software]], Valgrind is currently the featured article 

message: The phrase an excellent reputation and is widely used uses valgrind.org as reference, which is hardly sufficient.
In spite of all its qualities, valgrind does not at all see a use as wide as for example gcc nor the LAMP components.
The praise has been moderated accordingly.
Secondly, the awards appear to be two Open Source Awards won not by valgrind,
but by its original author for his work on valgrind. This distinction is now made.
Lastly, the important limitation that valgrind cannot detect even the most trivial
errors in stack usage is mentioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lklundin (talk • contribs) 13:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV improvement 

message: (This is in contrast to IBM Rational Purify, which can only detect "uninitialized memory copy", which is in itself a valid operation. For instance, the X Window System client libraries frequently copy partly uninitialized structures around, which trigger large numbers of spurious alerts with Purify, forcing programmers to turn off the warnings for uninitialized memory copying.)
I'm not entirely certain this appropriate. While the argument may be valid, it sounds like someone's being defensive/expressing frustration. I've reworded it, but I'm not very happy with my result.
Can anyone thing of a way to say this and still sound neutral, but not confuse the reader? --JamesBrownJr (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it's more appropriate on the Purify page? Arthurrh (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IBM Rational Purify 

message: The first sentence in the Overview section confuses concepts. JIT is not binary translation, and besides, although Valgrind could do binary translation, it doesn't (see page 4 of Valgrind: A Framework for Heavyweight Dynamic Binary Instrumentation). Instead, it uses binary recompilation (explicitly mentioned in page 3 of said page). By the way, page 4 also mentions that Valgrind uses a JIT (just confirming the existing info). I'm changing the text accordingly.--Bauermann (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  JIT vs binary translation vs binary recompilation 

message: The section 'Limitations of Memcheck' currently states that
'the Valgrind experimental tool Ptrcheck can detect errors like this as can many other static code analysis tools'.
However I took the example source code, stuck it together with a 'return func();' in main() and ran 'valgrind --tool=exp-ptrcheck' on it (under Ubuntu Karmic).
No errors were reported. Can others reproduce that? In that case the description of the Ptrcheck tool seems to be incorrect. Lklundin (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ptrcheck 

message: While the Valgrind FAQ does give the /ˈvælɡrɪnd/ pronunciation (as in "grinned") as the correct one, the /ˈvælɡraɪnd/ pronunciation (as in "grind") is also widely used. For instance, I just attended a presentation in which the speakers and attendees all used the latter pronunciation. Wondering whether the first sentence should be modified to indicate this. - AlanUS (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation

message: C and C++? Any other?
PER9000 (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Valgrind works on executable binaries and is not language-specifichttp://valgrind.org/info/about.html.  LiberatorG (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. So if you run for example an interpreted program (e.g. perl) through valgrind, you will be analyzing the interpreter executable (e.g. /usr/bin/perl) with only the opportunity of getting a rather indirect if any information relevant to the interpreted program itself. In principle the article could try and explain that. Lklundin (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

text: In the case of interpreters, Valgrind will see which interrpreter need to run and then execute the binary of the interpreter in Valgrind. For binaries, any resonably standard ELF binary should work. Error information comes from DWARF debuginfo, so any language that uses it should get info about the source locations of variables. The last thing is name mangling. Valgrind imports its demangling code from libiberty. Not all languages are supported - C++, D and Rust should work. There's code for ADA amd Java there as well, but it's not active. Probably. 146.122.203.38 (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: supported languages

message: I've just removed this sentence. Perhaps it could become relevant if accompanied by further explanation (What would the benefits be? Does 'it could use' mean it'd be trivial to implement, or just theoretically possible at great difficulty?). As it stood, it seemed to add nothing to the article other than a definition of something Valgrind doesn't do.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.112.55.5 (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd put this in the "great difficulty" category. It would require: coping with cross-platform ELF differences, translation of syscalls, ensuring that the intermediate representation codes are available for the target processor, no use of functions wrapping target processor instructions and probably quite a lot more. 146.122.203.38 (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  " Even though it could use dynamic translation (that is, the host and target processors are from different architectures), it doesn't."