==64128== Memcheck, a memory error detector ==64128== Copyright (C) 2002-2013, and GNU GPL'd, by Julian Seward et al. ==64128== Using Valgrind-3.11.0.SVN and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info ==64128== Command: ../test ==64128== vex x86->IR: unhandled instruction bytes: 0x66 0xF 0x3A 0xB ==64128== valgrind: Unrecognised instruction at address 0xa95c1d6. ==64128== at 0xA95C1D6: trunc$fenv_access_off (in /usr/lib/system/libsystem_m.dylib) ==64128== by 0x14D7326: (censored) ==64128== by 0x14D55FF: (censored) ==64128== by 0x14D577F: (censored) ==64128== by 0x1485258: (censored) ==64128== by 0x148544B: (censored) ==64128== by 0x8FE1345A: ImageLoaderMachO::doModInitFunctions(ImageLoader::LinkContext const&) (in /usr/lib/dyld) ==64128== by 0x8FE135C3: ImageLoaderMachO::doInitialization(ImageLoader::LinkContext const&) (in /usr/lib/dyld) ==64128== by 0x8FE0F92B: ImageLoader::recursiveInitialization(ImageLoader::LinkContext const&, unsigned int, ImageLoader::InitializerTimingList&) (in /usr/lib/dyld) ==64128== by 0x8FE0F7BB: ImageLoader::runInitializers(ImageLoader::LinkContext const&, ImageLoader::InitializerTimingList&) (in /usr/lib/dyld) ==64128== by 0x8FE0205D: dyld::initializeMainExecutable() (in /usr/lib/dyld) ==64128== by 0x8FE05827: dyld::_main(macho_header const*, unsigned long, int, char const**, char const**, char const**, unsigned long*) (in /usr/lib/dyld) ==64128== Your program just tried to execute an instruction that Valgrind ==64128== did not recognise. There are two possible reasons for this. ==64128== 1. Your program has a bug and erroneously jumped to a non-code ==64128== location. If you are running Memcheck and you just saw a ==64128== warning about a bad jump, it's probably your program's fault. ==64128== 2. The instruction is legitimate but Valgrind doesn't handle it, ==64128== i.e. it's Valgrind's fault. If you think this is the case or ==64128== you are not sure, please let us know and we'll try to fix it. ==64128== Either way, Valgrind will now raise a SIGILL signal which will ==64128== probably kill your program. ==64128== ==64128== Process terminating with default action of signal 4 (SIGILL) ==64128== Illegal opcode at address 0xA95C1D6 ==64128== at 0xA95C1D6: trunc$fenv_access_off (in /usr/lib/system/libsystem_m.dylib) ==64128== by 0x14D7326: (censored) ==64128== by 0x14D55FF: (censored) ==64128== by 0x14D577F: (censored) ==64128== by 0x1485258: (censored) ==64128== by 0x148544B: (censored) ==64128== by 0x8FE1345A: ImageLoaderMachO::doModInitFunctions(ImageLoader::LinkContext const&) (in /usr/lib/dyld) ==64128== by 0x8FE135C3: ImageLoaderMachO::doInitialization(ImageLoader::LinkContext const&) (in /usr/lib/dyld) ==64128== by 0x8FE0F92B: ImageLoader::recursiveInitialization(ImageLoader::LinkContext const&, unsigned int, ImageLoader::InitializerTimingList&) (in /usr/lib/dyld) ==64128== by 0x8FE0F7BB: ImageLoader::runInitializers(ImageLoader::LinkContext const&, ImageLoader::InitializerTimingList&) (in /usr/lib/dyld) ==64128== by 0x8FE0205D: dyld::initializeMainExecutable() (in /usr/lib/dyld) ==64128== by 0x8FE05827: dyld::_main(macho_header const*, unsigned long, int, char const**, char const**, char const**, unsigned long*) (in /usr/lib/dyld) ==64128== ==64128== HEAP SUMMARY: ==64128== in use at exit: 245,181 bytes in 1,570 blocks ==64128== total heap usage: 2,868 allocs, 1,298 frees, 409,318 bytes allocated ==64128== ==64128== LEAK SUMMARY: ==64128== definitely lost: 2,288 bytes in 47 blocks ==64128== indirectly lost: 22,276 bytes in 111 blocks ==64128== possibly lost: 82,616 bytes in 168 blocks ==64128== still reachable: 113,010 bytes in 735 blocks ==64128== suppressed: 24,991 bytes in 509 blocks ==64128== Rerun with --leak-check=full to see details of leaked memory ==64128== ==64128== For counts of detected and suppressed errors, rerun with: -v ==64128== ERROR SUMMARY: 0 errors from 0 contexts (suppressed: 1 from 1) Illegal instruction: 4 Reproducible: Always
Hi Dawid Drechny - are you able to provide ./test or a reduced test case so that developers can reproduce this unhandled instruction? I haven't seen it via the Valgrind regression test suite for instance, so hard to track down.
Actually, this is a dup of the report: https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=346023
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 346023 ***