Bug 377420 - Valgrind is missing an armv7 instruction
Summary: Valgrind is missing an armv7 instruction
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 344802
Alias: None
Product: valgrind
Classification: Developer tools
Component: general (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Platform: Other Linux
: NOR normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Julian Seward
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2017-03-09 13:23 UTC by Alberto Ruiz
Modified: 2017-05-10 08:36 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Latest Commit:
Version Fixed In:

Attachments
Add an attachment

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Alberto Ruiz 2017-03-09 13:23:05 UTC 
disInstr(arm): unhandled instruction: 0xEC510F1E
                 cond=14(0xE) 27:20=197(0xC5) 4:4=1 3:0=14(0xE)
==13274== valgrind: Unrecognised instruction at address 0x507b468.
==13274==    at 0x507B468: _armv7_tick (armv4cpuid.S:94)
==13274== Your program just tried to execute an instruction that Valgrind
==13274== did not recognise.  There are two possible reasons for this.
==13274== 1. Your program has a bug and erroneously jumped to a non-code
==13274==    location.  If you are running Memcheck and you just saw a
==13274==    warning about a bad jump, it's probably your program's fault.
==13274== 2. The instruction is legitimate but Valgrind doesn't handle it,
==13274==    i.e. it's Valgrind's fault.  If you think this is the case or
==13274==    you are not sure, please let us know and we'll try to fix it.
==13274== Either way, Valgrind will now raise a SIGILL signal which will
==13274== probably kill your program.
Comment 1 Peter Maydell 2017-03-09 13:28:00 UTC 
Looks like the same as bug 344082 to me (insn is reading CNTVCT).
Comment 2 Peter Maydell 2017-03-09 13:28:38 UTC 
Doh, I meant bug 344802...
Comment 3 Alberto Ruiz 2017-03-09 13:29:35 UTC 
(In reply to Peter Maydell from comment #1)
> Looks like the same as bug 344082 to me (insn is reading CNTVCT).

That bug seems unrelated to valgrind.
Comment 4 Alberto Ruiz 2017-03-09 13:30:02 UTC 
(In reply to Peter Maydell from comment #2)
> Doh, I meant bug 344802...

that makes more sense now :D
Comment 5 Julian Seward 2017-05-10 08:36:02 UTC 

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 344802 ***