On 12 February 2018 at 10:56, Duy Nguyen <pclo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 3:05 AM, Martin Ågren <martin.ag...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 6 February 2018 at 03:13, Jeff King <p...@peff.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 08:28:10PM +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote:
>>>> I learned SANITIZE=leak today! It not only catches this but also "dst".
>>>> Jeff is there any ongoing effort to make the test suite pass with
>>>> SANITIZE=leak? My t2038 passed, so I went ahead with the full test
>>>> suite and saw so many failures. I did see in your original mails that
>>>> you focused on t0000 and t0001 only..
>>> Yeah, I did those two scripts to try to prove to myself that the
>>> approach was good. But I haven't really pushed it any further.
>>> Martin Ågren (cc'd) did some follow-up work, but I think we still have a
>>> long way to go.
>> Agreed. :-)
> Should we mark the test files that pass SANITIZE=leak and run as a sub
> testsuite? This way we can start growing it until it covers everything
> (unlikely) and make sure people don't break what's already passed.
> Of course I don't expect everybody to run this new make target with
> SANITIZE=leak. Travis can do that for us and hopefully have some way
> to tell git@vger about new breakages.
Makes sense to try to make sure that we don't regress leak-free tests. I
don't know what our Travis-budget looks like, but I would volunteer to
run something like this periodically using my own cycles.
My experience with the innards of our Makefiles and test-lib.sh is
non-existant, but from a very cursory look it seems like something as
simple as loading GIT_SKIP_TESTS from a blacklist-file might do the
trick. I could try to look into it in the next couple of days.