+\subsubsection faq_trouble_errors_big_fat_warning I'm told that my XML files are too old.
+
+We have decided to change the units in SimGrid. Now we use Bytes, Flops and
+seconds instead of MBytes, MFlops and seconds... Units should be updated
+accordingly and the version of platform_description should be set to a
+valuer greater than 1:
+\verbatim
+ <platform_description version="1">
+\endverbatim
+You should try to use the surfxml_update.pl script that can be found
+<a href="https://gforge.inria.fr/plugins/scmsvn/viewcvs.php/contrib/trunk/platform_generation/?rev=4721&root=simgrid"">here</a>.
+
+\subsection faq_trouble_valgrind Valgrind-related issues
+
+If you don't, you really should use valgrind to debug your code, it's
+almost magic.
+
+\subsubsection faq_trouble_vg_context Stack switching problems and truncated backtraces
+
+With the default version of simgrid, valgrind will probably spit tons
+of warnings about stack switching like the following, and produce
+truncated bactraces where only one call appears instead of the whole
+stack.
+
+\verbatim
+==14908== Warning: client switching stacks? SP change: 0xBEA2A48C --> 0x476F350
+==14908== to suppress, use: --max-stackframe=1171541700 or greater
+==14908== Warning: client switching stacks? SP change: 0x476E1E4 --> 0xBEA2A48C
+==14908== to suppress, use: --max-stackframe=1171537240 or greater
+==14908== Warning: client switching stacks? SP change: 0xBEA2A48C --> 0x4792420
+==14908== to suppress, use: --max-stackframe=1171685268 or greater
+==14908== further instances of this message will not be shown.
+\endverbatim
+
+This is because valgrind don't like too much the UNIX98 contextes we
+use by default in simgrid for efficiency reasons. Simply add the
+--with-pthread flag to your configure when debugging your code. You
+may also find --disable-compiler-optimization usefull if valgrind or
+gdb get fooled by the optimization done by the compiler. But you
+should remove these flages when everything works before going in
+production (before launching your 1252135 experiments), or everything
+will run only one third of the true SimGrid potential.
+
+\subsubsection faq_trouble_vg_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??
+
+\subsubsection faq_trouble_vg_libc Valgrind spits tons of errors about backtraces!
+
+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
+
+\subsection faq_deadlock There is a deadlock in my code!!!