Valgrind results for Nov 12 & 13
dmitry at codeweavers.com
Thu Nov 15 04:33:36 CST 2007
"Dan Kegel" <dank at kegel.com> wrote:
> On Nov 14, 2007 10:16 PM, Dmitry Timoshkov
>> While looking at the valgrind reports above I noticed that a lot of
>> warnings are triggered in NTDLL_queue_process_apc by the fact that
>> not the whole apc_call_t union is initialized before passing it to
>> the server. In contrast SERVER_START_REQ always initializes
>> __server_request_info to 0 before the client starts to fill the fields.
>> Probably that's the question to Alexandre whether we should memset(0)
>> apc_call_t before filling it, or just ignore valgrind warnings.
> Oh, he'd undoubtedly prefer ignoring to memsetting.
> But he would like it even better if we can
> avoid sending unneeded bytes. Are the extra
> bytes at the end (they ought to be)? If so,
> whatever decides how many bytes to send could
> be just a bit smarter.
Since wineserver sequests are sent without an attempt to reduce the size of
written data (and memset(0) is a part of SERVER_START_REQ macro) I'd assume
that it's ok to do the same for server APC requests. Otherwise server calls
need to be optimized as well.
More information about the wine-devel