Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Message-ID: <41BA26A1.9060007@kleckner.net> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 14:43:45 -0800 From: Jim Kleckner User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040616 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: cygwin-gcc-fopen bug? (Purify, valgrind) References: <41BA0803 DOT 10103 AT kleckner DOT net> In-Reply-To: <41BA0803.10103@kleckner.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Jim Kleckner wrote: > Dave Korn wrote: ... >> Maybe we should try and port the free open-source equivalent valgrind >> (http://valgrind.kde.org/) instead? I haven't ever looked at this, >> but it ought >> to be possible. I note that you can use (a special variant version >> of) valgrind >> to verify win32 apps running on WINE. So I guess there's a >> long-way-round to do >> that already.... > > > Interesting tool and it looks promising. ... > Without careful feature comparison, I can't be > sure, but I'll bet there are significant checks > that Purify does (if OCI is enabled) that Valgrind > does not do. FWIW, these folks have done a detailed comparison: http://tinyurl.com/4un5g http://www.cs.wm.edu/~coppit/csci780-fall2003/final-papers/hewett-dipalma.pdf Valgrind does indeed look competitive, although the authors weren't too explicit about what types of errors were found by one and not the other. Now, I wonder how hard it is to port... Jim -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/