[valgrind] [Bug 396290] [PATCH] Possible tool - allocfail

2018-08-23 Thread bugzilla_noreply
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396290 --- Comment #21 from roger.li...@cedalo.com --- I'll make the if explicit changes. I still need to have a proper go over the documentation to tie it together as a whole and give more examples of all the options and how they interact - I'll cover the

[valgrind] [Bug 396290] [PATCH] Possible tool - allocfail

2018-08-22 Thread Ivo Raisr
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396290 --- Comment #20 from Ivo Raisr --- Thank you for your work. This is going to be a useful Valgrind tool. I like the documentation for the latest patch. Reasoning explained well on examples. You could mention that the default behaviour (fail unseen

[valgrind] [Bug 396290] [PATCH] Possible tool - allocfail

2018-08-22 Thread bugzilla_noreply
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396290 roger.li...@cedalo.com changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #114245|0 |1 is obsolete|

[valgrind] [Bug 396290] [PATCH] Possible tool - allocfail

2018-08-02 Thread Roger Light
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396290 --- Comment #18 from Roger Light --- Yes, I see your point. I had this in my mind as more of a tool for working with test suites where you had more control over what was happening anyway, but in reality people will use it as they will. -- You are

[valgrind] [Bug 396290] [PATCH] Possible tool - allocfail

2018-08-01 Thread Philippe Waroquiers
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396290 --- Comment #17 from Philippe Waroquiers --- (In reply to Roger Light from comment #15) > Thanks for the comments and review. > > I think adding greater capability for controlling where and when failures > occur, and adding syscall support could turn

[valgrind] [Bug 396290] [PATCH] Possible tool - allocfail

2018-07-31 Thread Roger Light
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396290 Roger Light changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #114229|0 |1 is obsolete|

[valgrind] [Bug 396290] [PATCH] Possible tool - allocfail

2018-07-31 Thread Roger Light
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396290 --- Comment #15 from Roger Light --- Thanks for the comments and review. I think adding greater capability for controlling where and when failures occur, and adding syscall support could turn this into a really useful tool. I don't think that should

[valgrind] [Bug 396290] [PATCH] Possible tool - allocfail

2018-07-31 Thread Ivo Raisr
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396290 --- Comment #14 from Ivo Raisr --- The current exp-allocfail crashes badly on my Ubuntu 18.04 box. When running './vg-in-place --tool=exp-allocfail /bin/date', it crashes at af_main.c:119. That's because i is equal to an equivalent of '-1'

[valgrind] [Bug 396290] [PATCH] Possible tool - allocfail

2018-07-31 Thread Ivo Raisr
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396290 --- Comment #13 from Ivo Raisr --- (In reply to roger.light from comment #8) > Created attachment 114229 [details] > Updated patch with fixes and text callstacks. Looks quite good. There are just few nits: - Please remove trailing whitespace you

[valgrind] [Bug 396290] [PATCH] Possible tool - allocfail

2018-07-31 Thread Philippe Waroquiers
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396290 --- Comment #12 from Philippe Waroquiers --- ((In reply to Philippe Waroquiers from comment #11) > Yes, I agree that having a way to exercise the error recovery/handling > patch of an application is a very good thing to do. Remove 'patch of' in the

[valgrind] [Bug 396290] [PATCH] Possible tool - allocfail

2018-07-31 Thread Philippe Waroquiers
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396290 --- Comment #11 from Philippe Waroquiers --- Yes, I agree that having a way to exercise the error recovery/handling patch of an application is a very good thing to do. IMO, it is very late now to add this, even as an exp tool. A.o. we better discuss

[valgrind] [Bug 396290] [PATCH] Possible tool - allocfail

2018-07-31 Thread Ivo Raisr
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396290 --- Comment #10 from Ivo Raisr --- (In reply to Philippe Waroquiers from comment #9) > I am wondering also how much difficult it would be to somewhat more > generalise the tool. > > For example, we might want to make similar tests to check failing

[valgrind] [Bug 396290] [PATCH] Possible tool - allocfail

2018-07-31 Thread Philippe Waroquiers
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396290 --- Comment #9 from Philippe Waroquiers --- I am wondering also how much difficult it would be to somewhat more generalise the tool. For example, we might want to make similar tests to check failing syscalls. A part of the tool can then be re-used

[valgrind] [Bug 396290] [PATCH] Possible tool - allocfail

2018-07-31 Thread bugzilla_noreply
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396290 roger.li...@cedalo.com changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #113910|0 |1 is obsolete|

[valgrind] [Bug 396290] [PATCH] Possible tool - allocfail

2018-07-30 Thread Ivo Raisr
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396290 --- Comment #7 from Ivo Raisr --- Alright, I think it would be preferable to have --num-callers used instead of --depth. Users are already familiar with --num-callers. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.

[valgrind] [Bug 396290] [PATCH] Possible tool - allocfail

2018-07-30 Thread bugzilla_noreply
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396290 --- Comment #6 from roger.li...@cedalo.com --- > Please could you also fix some small problems in your code, such as using > "naked" C types (char), missing space between 'if' and '{'. Also do not > include system files (fcntl.h) - use Valgrind's own

[valgrind] [Bug 396290] [PATCH] Possible tool - allocfail

2018-07-30 Thread Ivo Raisr
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396290 Ivo Raisr changed: What|Removed |Added Ever confirmed|0 |1 Status|UNCONFIRMED

[valgrind] [Bug 396290] [PATCH] Possible tool - allocfail

2018-07-29 Thread bugzilla_noreply
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396290 --- Comment #4 from roger.li...@cedalo.com --- Thanks for taking a look. I'm well aware that the set of tools in valgrind is a select bunch, so I'm not expecting a merge. Your understanding of the tool is correct. The idea of using sha3 for storing the

[valgrind] [Bug 396290] [PATCH] Possible tool - allocfail

2018-07-29 Thread bugzilla_noreply
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396290 roger.li...@cedalo.com changed: What|Removed |Added Attachment #113820|0 |1 is obsolete|

[valgrind] [Bug 396290] [PATCH] Possible tool - allocfail

2018-07-29 Thread Philippe Waroquiers
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396290 Philippe Waroquiers changed: What|Removed |Added CC||philippe.waroquiers@skynet.

[valgrind] [Bug 396290] [PATCH] Possible tool - allocfail

2018-07-12 Thread bugzilla_noreply
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396290 --- Comment #1 from roger.li...@cedalo.com --- Created attachment 113910 --> https://bugs.kde.org/attachment.cgi?id=113910=edit Patch using sha3 for hashing instead of adler32 checksums. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all