+\section faq_troubleshooting Troubleshooting
+
+\subsection faq_compil_trouble ./configure fails!
+
+We now only one reason for the configure to fail:
+
+ - <b>You are using a borken build environment</b>\n
+ If symptom is that configure complains about gcc not being able to build
+ executables, you are probably missing the libc6-dev package. Damn Ubuntu.
+
+If you experience other kind of issue, please get in touch with us. We are
+always interested in improving our portability to new systems.
+
+\subsection faq_distcheck_fails Dude! "make check" fails on my machine!
+
+Don't assume we never run this target, because we do. Really. Promise!
+
+There is several reasons which may cause the make check to fail on your
+machine:
+
+ - <b>You are using a borken libc (probably concerning the contextes)</b>.\n
+ The symptom is that the "make check" fails within the examples/msg directory.\n
+ By default, SimGrid uses something called ucontexts. This is part of the
+ libc, but it's quite undertested. For example, some (old) versions of the
+ glibc on alpha do not implement these functions, but provide the stubs
+ (which return ENOSYS: not implemented). It fools our detection mecanism
+ and leads to segfaults.\n
+ On some x86_64, the pointer to function is stored into a integer, but int
+ are 32bits only on this arch while pointers are 64bits. Our detection
+ mecanism also fails to detect the problem, which leads to segfaults.\n
+ In both cases, there is not much we can do to fix the bug. We are working
+ on a workaround for x86_64 machines, but in the meanwhile, you can
+ compile with --with-context=pthread to avoid ucontext completely. You'll
+ be a bit more limitated in the number of simulated processes you can start
+ concurently, but 5000 processes is still enough for most purposes, isn't
+ it?\n
+ This limitation is the reason why we insist on using this piece of ...
+ software even if it's so troublesome.\n
+ <b>=> use --with-pthread on AMD64 architecture that do not have an
+ ultra-recent libc.</b>
+
+ - <b>There is a bug in SimGrid we aren't aware of</b>.\n
+ If none of the above apply, please drop us a mail on the mailing list so
+ that we can check it out.
+
+\subsection faq_longjmp longjmp madness in valgrind
+
+This is when valgrind starts complaining about longjmp things, just like:
+
+\verbatim ==21434== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)
+==21434== at 0x420DBE5: longjmp (longjmp.c:33)
+==21434==
+==21434== Use of uninitialised value of size 4
+==21434== at 0x420DC3A: __longjmp (__longjmp.S:48)
+\endverbatim
+
+or even when it reports scary things like:
+
+\verbatim ==24023== Warning: client switching stacks? SP change: 0xBE3FF618 --> 0xBE7FF710
+x86->IR: unhandled instruction bytes: 0xF4 0xC7 0x83 0xD0
+==24023== to suppress, use: --max-stackframe=4194552 or greater
+==24023== Your program just tried to execute an instruction that Valgrind
+==24023== did not recognise. There are two possible reasons for this.
+==24023== 1. Your program has a bug and erroneously jumped to a non-code
+==24023== location. If you are running Memcheck and you just saw a
+==24023== warning about a bad jump, it's probably your program's fault.
+==24023== 2. The instruction is legitimate but Valgrind doesn't handle it,
+==24023== i.e. it's Valgrind's fault. If you think this is the case or
+==24023== you are not sure, please let us know.
+==24023== Either way, Valgrind will now raise a SIGILL signal which will
+==24023== probably kill your program.
+==24023==
+==24023== Process terminating with default action of signal 4 (SIGILL)
+==24023== Illegal opcode at address 0x420D234
+==24023== at 0x420D234: abort (abort.c:124)
+\endverbatim
+
+This is the sign that you didn't used the exception mecanism well. Most
+probably, you have a <tt>return;</tt> somewhere within a <tt>TRY{}</tt>
+block. This is <b>evil</b>, and you must not do this. Did you read the section
+about \ref XBT_ex??
+
+\subsection faq_valgrind Valgrind spits tons of errors!
+
+It may happen that valgrind, the memory debugger beloved by any decent C
+programmer, spits tons of warnings like the following :
+\verbatim ==8414== Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)
+==8414== at 0x400882D: (within /lib/ld-2.3.6.so)
+==8414== by 0x414EDE9: (within /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc-2.3.6.so)
+==8414== by 0x400B105: (within /lib/ld-2.3.6.so)
+==8414== by 0x414F937: _dl_open (in /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc-2.3.6.so)
+==8414== by 0x4150F4C: (within /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc-2.3.6.so)
+==8414== by 0x400B105: (within /lib/ld-2.3.6.so)
+==8414== by 0x415102D: __libc_dlopen_mode (in /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc-2.3.6.so)
+==8414== by 0x412D6B9: backtrace (in /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc-2.3.6.so)
+==8414== by 0x8076446: xbt_dictelm_get_ext (dict_elm.c:714)
+==8414== by 0x80764C1: xbt_dictelm_get (dict_elm.c:732)
+==8414== by 0x8079010: xbt_cfg_register (config.c:208)
+==8414== by 0x806821B: MSG_config (msg_config.c:42)
+\endverbatim
+
+This problem is somewhere in the libc when using the backtraces and there is
+very few things we can do ourselves to fix it. Instead, here is how to tell
+valgrind to ignore the error. Add the following to your ~/.valgrind.supp (or
+create this file on need). Make sure to change the obj line according to
+your personnal mileage (change 2.3.6 to the actual version you are using,
+which you can retrieve with a simple "ls /lib/ld*.so").
+
+\verbatim {
+ name: Backtrace madness
+ Memcheck:Cond
+ obj:/lib/ld-2.3.6.so
+ fun:dl_open_worker
+ fun:_dl_open
+ fun:do_dlopen
+ fun:dlerror_run
+ fun:__libc_dlopen_mode
+}\endverbatim
+
+Then, you have to specify valgrind to use this suppression file by passing
+the <tt>--suppressions=$HOME/.valgrind.supp</tt> option on the command line.
+You can also add the following to your ~/.bashrc so that it gets passed
+automatically. Actually, it passes a bit more options to valgrind, and this
+happen to be my personnal settings. Check the valgrind documentation for
+more information.
+
+\verbatim export VALGRIND_OPTS="--leak-check=yes --leak-resolution=high --num-callers=40 --tool=memcheck --suppressions=$HOME/.valgrind.supp" \endverbatim
+