Hi Hubert, Am Mittwoch, 8. April 2015, 18:59:59 schrieb Hubert Tarasiuk: > I forgot to add Makefile.am to commit message. Please find the updated > patch attached, > > W dniu 08.04.2015 o 18:55, Hubert Tarasiuk pisze: > > W dniu 06.04.2015 o 22:26, Tim Rühsen pisze: > >> Valgrind suppressions are a bit compiler/architecture/distribution > >> dependent. Maybe you could you add a comment into the suppression file > >> with these infos. As a quick reference and explanation. > > > > I have added a reference URL to Redhat's bugzilla, where the problem is > > described. > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678518 > > > >> Sorry, one point I missed: Please put the suppression file into > >> EXTRA_DIST > >> variable in tests/Makefile.am. Else it won't go into the tarball (make > >> dist).> > > Done. > > > > I also refactored a little my modification in the Perl script. (Put the > > suppression file path into a variable, and use Cwd to get the correct > > path, instead of making relative path from the test being run.)
Could you use $srcdir instead Cwd ? I didn't test it, but it could fail when using DISTCHECK_CONFIGURE_FLAGS="VALGRIND_TESTS=1" make distcheck. It least we should use the same path mechanism as with e.g. 'certs' in Test-proxied-https-auth.px. > > > > And I also found a simpler way to suppress that error. Valgrind has an > > option --partial-loads-ok which would suppress it (more details can be > > found in the URL above). > > > > I am not sure which workaround is better for Wget (suppression file vs. > > --partial-loads-ok=yes). What do you think? > > (The --partial-loads-ok could suppress actual mistakes in future Wget's > > code, while the former just works for the particular function in > > libidn.so.)> You name it. IMO, that is why we should stick with a suppression file. Finer granularity, more control. Regards, Tim
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
