Bug 188984

Summary: Data corruption for returned from function long double
Product: [Developer tools] valgrind Reporter: Petr Ovtchenkov <abominable-snowman>
Component: memcheckAssignee: Julian Seward <jseward>
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE    
Severity: normal CC: njn
Priority: NOR    
Version: 3.5 SVN   
Target Milestone: ---   
Platform: Compiled Sources   
OS: Linux   
Latest Commit: Version Fixed In:
Attachments: Problem illustration

Description Petr Ovtchenkov 2009-04-06 22:35:26 UTC
Created attachment 32665 [details]
Problem illustration

Linux localhost 2.6.27.18 #1 SMP Thu Feb 19 22:58:17 MSK 2009 i686 i686 i386
GNU/Linux
(glibc 2.7)

valgrind-3.5 SVN trunk (r9408). gcc 4.2.4.

For 96-bit float (extended precision, long double for GCC) on Intel platform
functions that return long double, fill only 80 bits. This not a problem,
because last 16 bit not used in this long double format. But under valgrind returned data filled with zeroes and report about error. For attached test:

==23432== Memcheck, a memory error detector.
==23432== Copyright (C) 2002-2009, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==23432== Using LibVEX rev 1885, a library for dynamic binary translation.
==23432== Copyright (C) 2004-2009, and GNU GPL'd, by OpenWorks LLP.
==23432== Using valgrind-3.5.0.SVN, a dynamic binary instrumentation framework.
==23432== Copyright (C) 2000-2009, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al.
==23432== For more details, rerun with: -v
==23432==
==23432== Use of uninitialised value of size 4
==23432==    at 0x4093EF1: _itoa_word (in /lib/libc-2.7.so)
==23432==    by 0x4095E29: vfprintf (in /lib/libc-2.7.so)
==23432==    by 0x409DF92: printf (in /lib/libc-2.7.so)
==23432==    by 0x8048447: main (test.c:23)
==23432==
==23432== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)
==23432==    at 0x4093EF7: _itoa_word (in /lib/libc-2.7.so)
==23432==    by 0x4095E29: vfprintf (in /lib/libc-2.7.so)
==23432==    by 0x409DF92: printf (in /lib/libc-2.7.so)
==23432==    by 0x8048447: main (test.c:23)
==23432==
==23432== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)
==23432==    at 0x4095B4D: vfprintf (in /lib/libc-2.7.so)
==23432==    by 0x409DF92: printf (in /lib/libc-2.7.so)
==23432==    by 0x8048447: main (test.c:23)
00000000000000000000a4be
==23432==
==23432== ERROR SUMMARY: 8 errors from 3 contexts (suppressed: 15 from 1)
==23432== malloc/free: in use at exit: 0 bytes in 0 blocks.
==23432== malloc/free: 0 allocs, 0 frees, 0 bytes allocated.
==23432== For counts of detected errors, rerun with: -v
==23432== Use --track-origins=yes to see where uninitialised values come from
==23432== All heap blocks were freed -- no leaks are possible.

But without valgrind it print something like

00000000000000800100d5bf

as expected (last four digits may vary, of cause --- it uninitialized).
Comment 1 Nicholas Nethercote 2009-06-26 02:28:29 UTC
Intel machines support 96-bit floats?  I thought they only went up to 80 bits.  And Valgrind only supports up to 64-bits.  Are you sure it's not the 80 vs 64 issue you are seeing?
Comment 2 Nicholas Nethercote 2009-06-26 02:41:03 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> Are you sure it's not the 80 vs 64 issue you are seeing?

If it is, this should be marked as a dup of bug 197915.
Comment 3 Petr Ovtchenkov 2009-06-26 09:00:45 UTC
> I thought they only went up to 80 bits.

Yes. This is 'long double' in C (gcc). But it stored in 12 bytes (or 16 bytes for 64-bit addressing), not in 10, due to alignment issue.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_precision and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_double

> And Valgrind only supports up to 64-bits.
> Are you sure it's not the 80 vs 64 issue you are seeing?

See attachment: sample how to reproduce problem.

> If it is, this should be marked as a dup of bug 197915.

Looks like it mean the same issue. Well, bug 197915 is a duplicate of this bug ;), see report date. Here simple test present (attached to this ticket), for clear reference.

> (bug 197915) ... programs that rely on 80-bit precision are not portable.
What about C99, where 'long double' present? Or you mean that 80-bit float not conform to IEEE 754-1985/IEEE 754-2008?
Comment 4 Nicholas Nethercote 2009-08-18 00:47:17 UTC
I know this bug predates bug 197915, but I'm marking this as a duplicate because that's the tracking bug we're using for this problem.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 197915 ***