This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Valgrind article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
In the first few paragraphs is talks about the ucode being turned back into x86 code and vice versa, which is not strictly true, as valgrind does run on PPC processors as well, which means that the code is being turned into PPC assembly, rather than x86. Can someone correct this?
Isn't a phrase like "It has an excellent reputation" without any kind of reference a highly POV statement? Arthurrh 20:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The term excellent reputation also made me think of the POV issue. Although valgrind is very useful, the article would do well to mention one serious limitation: valgrind cannot detect errors in the stack usage, including automatic arrays. (And I know about annelid, based on an older version of valgrind, but the existance of this package does not really help).
Lklundin 23:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
(2006-12-28) Just to let you know. The purpose of selecting an article is both to point readers to the article and to highlight it to potential contributors. It will remain on the portal for a week or so. The previous selected article was GNU Radio. Gronky 16:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The phrase an excellent reputation and is widely used uses valgrind.org as reference, which is hardly sufficient.
In spite of all its qualities, valgrind does not at all see a use as wide as for example gcc nor the LAMP components.
The praise has been moderated accordingly.
Secondly, the awards appear to be two Open Source Awards won not by valgrind, but by its original author for his work on valgrind. This distinction is now made.
Lastly, the important limitation that valgrind cannot detect even the most trivial errors in stack usage is mentioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lklundin (talk • contribs) 13:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC).
The Limitations section doesn't mention any specific limitation. It gives a small example but doesn't explain why it can't detect the problem. Suggest that an explanation be included or the section removed. Eric.frederich 19:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
There's a difference in C between static variables and plain old globals. The example code shows only a plain old global, but it's called 'Static'. I don't know what Valgrind's behavior is, but it's not clear from the article whether Valgrind has a limitation catching bounds errors on any global array, in which case the text referring to 'static arrays' should be changed, or if Valgrind has a limitation catching bounds errors on static arrays, in which case the C code needs the static qualifier before the "int Static[5];". I realize the same error was made in Valgrind's FAQ, but that doesn't make it right. Beyondo (talk) 12:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
There is none. When did valgrind first appear? When and how did it get developed? 128.187.80.2 —Preceding comment was added at 21:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The documents being cited here - FAQ's, online documentation, etc - are secondary sources, as the primary source for Valgrind is in fact the source code itself. Unless someone can raise cogent issues about why the online doco for Valgrind is in some way inherently unreliable, can that nasty looking template be removed? mdf (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The meaning of the template is that we need some non-self-published sources about valgrind. Until then the template is appropriate. As the templates says "This article or section needs sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications." WP:VER explains this in more detail. Arthurrh (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not that it's not reliable, it's that it's one-sided, as well as the issue of notability. Read the part I quoted from the policy, it says "reliable, third-party publications." The addition of such sources would improve this article. Surely someone can find some third-party source talking about valgrind, if not it has a notability problem. Arthurrh (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Things like product reviews, case studies, etc. For example Microsoft Word#References. Arthurrh (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
And, in a related issue, in their FAQ, a limitation to their program, along with a working demonstration, is given. Being straight from the authors, this is effectively an adverse admission. This makes the argument about "competitors" you are making in your edit summary all the more difficult to follow. Are you reading the cited reference? mdf (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Looks like maybe we can pull some potential sources from here. Anyone have access to #18 for example? Arthurrh (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, self-published sources can be used. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive toward an improved article using third-party sources where available. I've added a couple, the link above lists more for someone who has time to chase down some of the refs. It's all about making the article better, not about attacking the subject of the article. Arthurrh (talk) 02:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
(This is in contrast to IBM Rational Purify, which can only detect "uninitialized memory copy", which is in itself a valid operation. For instance, the X Window System client libraries frequently copy partly uninitialized structures around, which trigger large numbers of spurious alerts with Purify, forcing programmers to turn off the warnings for uninitialized memory copying.)
I'm not entirely certain this appropriate. While the argument may be valid, it sounds like someone's being defensive/expressing frustration. I've reworded it, but I'm not very happy with my result.
Can anyone thing of a way to say this and still sound neutral, but not confuse the reader? --JamesBrownJr (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
The first sentence in the Overview section confuses concepts. JIT is not binary translation, and besides, although Valgrind could do binary translation, it doesn't (see page 4 of Valgrind: A Framework for Heavyweight Dynamic Binary Instrumentation). Instead, it uses binary recompilation (explicitly mentioned in page 3 of said page). By the way, page 4 also mentions that Valgrind uses a JIT (just confirming the existing info). I'm changing the text accordingly.--Bauermann (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The section 'Limitations of Memcheck' currently states that 'the Valgrind experimental tool Ptrcheck can detect errors like this as can many other static code analysis tools'. However I took the example source code, stuck it together with a 'return func();' in main() and ran 'valgrind --tool=exp-ptrcheck' on it (under Ubuntu Karmic). No errors were reported. Can others reproduce that? In that case the description of the Ptrcheck tool seems to be incorrect. Lklundin (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I wanted to, but my installation doesn't have ptrcheck. However, I'm removing the phrase as can many other static code analysis tools since ptrcheck clearly is a dynamic tool, like the rest of valgrind. (And in case someone wants to gloat over the fact that valgrind cannot do all things that expensive static tools can, you'll have to formulate it differently.) JöG (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
While the Valgrind FAQ does give the /ˈvælɡrɪnd/ pronunciation (as in "grinned") as the correct one, the /ˈvælɡraɪnd/ pronunciation (as in "grind") is also widely used. For instance, I just attended a presentation in which the speakers and attendees all used the latter pronunciation. Wondering whether the first sentence should be modified to indicate this. - AlanUS (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
C and C++? Any other? PER9000 (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
References
I've just removed this sentence. Perhaps it could become relevant if accompanied by further explanation (What would the benefits be? Does 'it could use' mean it'd be trivial to implement, or just theoretically possible at great difficulty?). As it stood, it seemed to add nothing to the article other than a definition of something Valgrind doesn't do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.112.55.5 (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)