Re: valgrind & rune_description_1
Jerry James <james(a)xemacs.org> writes:
You are correct; it does not analyze source code, so it has no hope
of distinguishing valid accesses within a stack frame from invalid
accesses within a stack frame. My hope was that it would catch
accesses to a different stack frame (since the simulated CPU could
see that a subroutine call is being made and save the value of the
old bottom of the stack).
It could indeed. Catching corruption of the parent's stack frame
would be awesome... Legitimate writes to those addresses can be
distinguished because they must come from pointer dereference. C is
not Tcl. :-)