<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes" ?>
<!DOCTYPE bugzilla SYSTEM "https://bugs.kde.org/page.cgi?id=bugzilla.dtd">

<bugzilla version="5.0.6"
          urlbase="https://bugs.kde.org/"
          
          maintainer="sysadmin@kde.org"
>

    <bug>
          <bug_id>206931</bug_id>
          
          <creation_ts>2009-09-10 06:28:17 +0000</creation_ts>
          <short_desc>vex amd64-&gt;IR: unhandled instruction bytes: 0x66 0x48 0xF 0x3A 0x16 0xA</short_desc>
          <delta_ts>2011-08-11 15:04:33 +0000</delta_ts>
          <reporter_accessible>1</reporter_accessible>
          <cclist_accessible>1</cclist_accessible>
          <classification_id>6</classification_id>
          <classification>Developer tools</classification>
          <product>valgrind</product>
          <component>general</component>
          <version>3.5.0</version>
          <rep_platform>Compiled Sources</rep_platform>
          <op_sys>Linux</op_sys>
          <bug_status>RESOLVED</bug_status>
          <resolution>FIXED</resolution>
          
          
          <bug_file_loc></bug_file_loc>
          <status_whiteboard></status_whiteboard>
          <keywords></keywords>
          <priority>NOR</priority>
          <bug_severity>crash</bug_severity>
          <target_milestone>---</target_milestone>
          
          <blocked>253451</blocked>
          <everconfirmed>0</everconfirmed>
          <reporter>kent.vandervelden</reporter>
          <assigned_to name="Julian Seward">jseward</assigned_to>
          <cc>tdillig</cc>
    
    <cc>tom</cc>
          
          <cf_commitlink></cf_commitlink>
          <cf_versionfixedin></cf_versionfixedin>
          <cf_sentryurl></cf_sentryurl>
          <votes>0</votes>

      

      

      

          <comment_sort_order>oldest_to_newest</comment_sort_order>  
          <long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>828163</commentid>
    <comment_count>0</comment_count>
    <who name="">kent.vandervelden</who>
    <bug_when>2009-09-10 06:28:17 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>Valgrind report:
vex amd64-&gt;IR: unhandled instruction bytes: 0x66 0x48 0xF 0x3A 0x16 0xA
==5835== valgrind: Unrecognised instruction at address 0x428256.
...
==5835== Process terminating with default action of signal 4 (SIGILL)

Objdump report:
  428227:       48 8b 54 24 08          mov    0x8(%rsp),%rdx
  42822c:       48 8b 0c 24             mov    (%rsp),%rcx
  428230:       49 89 c5                mov    %rax,%r13
  428233:       48 8b 44 24 48          mov    0x48(%rsp),%rax
  428238:       4c 8b 70 08             mov    0x8(%rax),%r14
  42823c:       4c 8b 38                mov    (%rax),%r15
  42823f:       33 c0                   xor    %eax,%eax
  428241:       66 48 0f 6e c9          movq   %rcx,%xmm1
  428246:       66 0f 6c c9             punpcklqdq %xmm1,%xmm1
  42824a:       66 48 0f 6e c2          movq   %rdx,%xmm0
  42824f:       4c 89 ea                mov    %r13,%rdx
  428252:       66 0f 6c c0             punpcklqdq %xmm0,%xmm0
  428256:       66 48 0f 3a 16 0a 00    pextrq $0x0,%xmm1,(%rdx)
  42825d:       66 48 0f 3a 16 4a 10    pextrq $0x1,%xmm1,0x10(%rdx)
  428264:       01
  428265:       66 48 0f 3a 16 42 08    pextrq $0x0,%xmm0,0x8(%rdx)
  42826c:       00
  42826d:       66 48 0f 3a 16 42 18    pextrq $0x1,%xmm0,0x18(%rdx)
  428274:       01
  428275:       48 83 c2 20             add    $0x20,%rdx
  428279:       48 83 c0 02             add    $0x2,%rax
  42827d:       48 83 f8 04             cmp    $0x4,%rax

Misc:
$ /usr/local/valgrind-3.5.0/bin/valgrind --version                                      
valgrind-3.5.0

$ uname -a
Linux linux-1 2.6.30.5-43.fc11.x86_64 #1 SMP Thu Aug 27 21:39:52 EDT 2009 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
Wed-22:47:25 3 0 kent@linux-1:~/Pioneer/projects/Bayes/BayesBFast_IISIBD_20090831/intel_2

$ icpc --version
icpc (ICC) 11.1 20090630
Copyright (C) 1985-2009 Intel Corporation.  All rights reserved.</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>829754</commentid>
    <comment_count>1</comment_count>
    <who name="Julian Seward">jseward</who>
    <bug_when>2009-09-13 15:41:28 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>Please post contents of /proc/cpuinfo.</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>829755</commentid>
    <comment_count>2</comment_count>
    <who name="Julian Seward">jseward</who>
    <bug_when>2009-09-13 15:44:31 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>Oh, it&apos;s a SSE4.1 insn, looks like.  This is on a Core iSomething cpu?</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>877353</commentid>
    <comment_count>3</comment_count>
    <who name="Thomas Dillig">tdillig</who>
    <bug_when>2009-12-10 19:32:30 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>I get the same bug on a Xeon 5400 (core 2) CPU:

processor       : 0                  
vendor_id       : GenuineIntel       
cpu family      : 6                  
model           : 23                 
model name      : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU           E5430  @ 2.66GHz
stepping        : 6                                              
cpu MHz         : 2000.000                                       
cache size      : 6144 KB                                        
physical id     : 0                                              
siblings        : 4                                              
core id         : 0                                              
cpu cores       : 4                                              
apicid          : 0                                              
initial apicid  : 0                                              
fpu             : yes                                            
fpu_exception   : yes                                            
cpuid level     : 10                                             
wp              : yes                                            
flags           : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe syscall nx lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good pni dtes64 monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr pdcm dca sse4_1 lahf_lm tpr_shadow vnmi flexpriority                                                                         
bogomips        : 5319.13                                                                                                    
clflush size    : 64                                                                                                         
cache_alignment : 64                                                                                                         
address sizes   : 38 bits physical, 48 bits virtual                                                                          
power management:       

and some more cores.

My error is:

==7349== Command: ./Debug/solver-ui
==7349==
vex amd64-&gt;IR: unhandled instruction bytes: 0x66 0xF 0x3A 0xA 0xC0 0x2
==7349== valgrind: Unrecognised instruction at address 0x41cfe4.
==7349== Your program just tried to execute an instruction that Valgrind
==7349== did not recognise.  There are two possible reasons for this.
==7349== 1. Your program has a bug and erroneously jumped to a non-code
==7349==    location.  If you are running Memcheck and you just saw a
==7349==    warning about a bad jump, it&apos;s probably your program&apos;s fault.
==7349== 2. The instruction is legitimate but Valgrind doesn&apos;t handle it,
==7349==    i.e. it&apos;s Valgrind&apos;s fault.  If you think this is the case or
==7349==    you are not sure, please let us know and we&apos;ll try to fix it.
==7349== Either way, Valgrind will now raise a SIGILL signal which will
==7349== probably kill your program.
==7349==
==7349== Process terminating with default action of signal 4 (SIGILL)
==7349==  Illegal opcode at address 0x41CFE4
==7349==    at 0x41CFE4: std::_Hashtable&lt;std::string, std::pair&lt;std::string const, il::type*&gt;, std::allocator&lt;std::pair&lt;std::string const, il::type*&gt; &gt;, std::_Select1st&lt;std::pair&lt;std::string const, il::type*&gt; &gt;, std::equal_to&lt;std::string&gt;, std::hash&lt;std::string&gt;, std::__detail::_Mod_range_hashing, std::__detail::_Default_ranged_hash, std::__detail::_Prime_rehash_policy, false, false, true&gt;::_Hashtable(unsigned long, std::hash&lt;std::string&gt; const&amp;, std::__detail::_Mod_range_hashing const&amp;, std::__detail::_Default_ranged_hash const&amp;, std::equal_to&lt;std::string&gt; const&amp;, std::_Select1st&lt;std::pair&lt;std::string const, il::type*&gt; &gt; const&amp;, std::allocator&lt;std::pair&lt;std::string const, il::type*&gt; &gt; const&amp;) (hashtable_policy.h:460)
==7349==    by 0x43F2D0: global constructors keyed to VarMap.cpp (unordered_map:70)
==7349==    by 0x498495: ??? (in /home/tdillig/research/solver-ui/Debug/solver-ui)
==7349==    by 0x49EE52: ??? (in /home/tdillig/research/solver-ui/Debug/solver-ui)
==7349==    by 0x5674F2F: ??? (in /usr/lib/libgtkmm-2.4.so.1.1.0)
==7349==    by 0x498424: __libc_csu_init (in /home/tdillig/research/solver-ui/Debug/solver-ui)
==7349==    by 0x9EACA4F: (below main) (libc-start.c:179)
==7349==
==7349== HEAP SUMMARY:
==7349==     in use at exit: 8,745 bytes in 109 blocks
==7349==   total heap usage: 110 allocs, 1 frees, 9,313 bytes allocated
==7349==
==7349== LEAK SUMMARY:
==7349==    definitely lost: 120 bytes in 1 blocks
==7349==    indirectly lost: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==7349==      possibly lost: 3,425 bytes in 103 blocks
==7349==    still reachable: 5,200 bytes in 5 blocks
==7349==         suppressed: 0 bytes in 0 blocks
==7349== Rerun with --leak-check=full to see details of leaked memory
==7349==
==7349== For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -v
==7349== ERROR SUMMARY: 0 errors from 0 contexts (suppressed: 4 from 4)</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>1152689</commentid>
    <comment_count>4</comment_count>
    <who name="Tom Hughes">tom</who>
    <bug_when>2011-08-11 15:03:11 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>(In reply to comment #3)
&gt; I get the same bug on a Xeon 5400 (core 2) CPU:
[snipped]
&gt; vex amd64-&gt;IR: unhandled instruction bytes: 0x66 0xF 0x3A 0xA 0xC0 0x2

No, that&apos;s a different bug because the instruction bytes are different.

Yours is ROUNDSS and was implemented in VEX r1986.</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>1152691</commentid>
    <comment_count>5</comment_count>
    <who name="Tom Hughes">tom</who>
    <bug_when>2011-08-11 15:04:33 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>The original error reported here is PEXTRQ which was implemented in VEX r1973.</thetext>
  </long_desc>
      
      

    </bug>

</bugzilla>