From dcdfabdf76be4d7c7089a25e8e8f9efadf2a185e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mark Wielaard <mjw@fedoraproject.org>
Date: Dec 12 2017 21:47:25 +0000
Subject: - Add valgrind-3.13.0-s390-cgijnl.patch.


---

diff --git a/valgrind-3.13.0-s390-cgijnl.patch b/valgrind-3.13.0-s390-cgijnl.patch
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..776bed6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/valgrind-3.13.0-s390-cgijnl.patch
@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+commit d6a810760ec61ddedf15445457edbbe288536a2f
+Author: Julian Seward <jseward@acm.org>
+Date:   Tue Dec 12 22:31:54 2017 +0100
+
+    Fix false positive with s390x cgijnl instruction testing against sign bit.
+    
+    https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=387712
+    
+    When the cgij "compare immediate and branch relative" instruction
+    compares 0 <=signed dep1, that means dep1 >=signed 0, so it is a test
+    against the most significant bit of dep1. So only that bit needs
+    to be defined.
+
+diff --git a/VEX/priv/guest_s390_helpers.c b/VEX/priv/guest_s390_helpers.c
+index 4cccdec..aacd833 100644
+--- a/VEX/priv/guest_s390_helpers.c
++++ b/VEX/priv/guest_s390_helpers.c
+@@ -1818,6 +1818,13 @@ isC64(const IRExpr *expr)
+    return expr->tag == Iex_Const && expr->Iex.Const.con->tag == Ico_U64;
+ }
+ 
++static inline Bool
++isC64_exactly(const IRExpr *expr, ULong n)
++{
++   return expr->tag == Iex_Const && expr->Iex.Const.con->tag == Ico_U64
++          && expr->Iex.Const.con->Ico.U64 == n;
++}
++
+ 
+ /* The returned expression is NULL if no specialization was found. In that
+    case the helper function will be called. Otherwise, the expression has
+@@ -1895,9 +1902,25 @@ guest_s390x_spechelper(const HChar *function_name, IRExpr **args,
+          }
+          /* cc_dep1 > cc_dep2  ---->  cc_dep2 < cc_dep1 */
+          if (cond == 2 || cond == 2 + 1) {
++            /* If we ever need the counterpart of the bug387712 fix just
++               below, then here is the place.  We'll need to give an
++               alternative expression for the case "cc_dep2 <s 0".  From a
++               bit of simple testing, I've yet to see any such cases,
++               however. */
+             return unop(Iop_1Uto32, binop(Iop_CmpLT64S, cc_dep2, cc_dep1));
+          }
+          if (cond == 8 + 2 || cond == 8 + 2 + 1) {
++            if (isC64_exactly(cc_dep2, 0)) {
++               /*     0    <=signed dep1
++                  --> dep1 >=signed 0
++                  --> m.s.bit of dep1 == 0 */
++               /* See bug 387712.  This is an old trick from gcc to extract
++                  the most significant bit of a word. */
++               return unop(Iop_64to32,
++                           binop(Iop_Xor64,
++                                 binop(Iop_Shr64, cc_dep1, mkU8(63)),
++                                 mkU64(1)));
++            }
+             return unop(Iop_1Uto32, binop(Iop_CmpLE64S, cc_dep2, cc_dep1));
+          }
+          if (cond == 8 + 4 + 2 || cond == 8 + 4 + 2 + 1) {
diff --git a/valgrind.spec b/valgrind.spec
index c713b4a..c614db3 100644
--- a/valgrind.spec
+++ b/valgrind.spec
@@ -150,6 +150,9 @@ Patch17: valgrind-3.13.0-ppc64-timebase.patch
 # KDE#387773 - Files in .gnu_debugaltlink should be resolved relative to .debug
 Patch18: valgrind-3.13.0-debug-alt-file.patch
 
+# KDE#387712 s390x cgijnl reports Conditional jump depends on uninit value
+Patch19: valgrind-3.13.0-s390-cgijnl.patch
+
 %if %{build_multilib}
 # Ensure glibc{,-devel} is installed for both multilib arches
 BuildRequires: /lib/libc.so.6 /usr/lib/libc.so /lib64/libc.so.6 /usr/lib64/libc.so
@@ -282,6 +285,7 @@ Valgrind User Manual for details.
 %patch16 -p1
 %patch17 -p1
 %patch18 -p1
+%patch19 -p1
 
 %build
 # We need to use the software collection compiler and binutils if available.
@@ -484,6 +488,9 @@ echo ===============END TESTING===============
 %endif
 
 %changelog
+* Tue Dec 12 2017 Mark Wielaard <mjw@fedoraproject.org>
+- Add valgrind-3.13.0-s390-cgijnl.patch.
+
 * Sun Dec 10 2017 Mark Wielaard <mjw@fedoraproject.org> - 3.13.0-11
 - Add valgrind-3.13.0-debug-alt-file.patch.