Bug#717144: Remove workaround-gcc296-bugs from ctest -T MemCheck

2013-07-18 Thread Modestas Vainius
Control: tags -1 = upstream fixed-upstream patch Hello, On Wednesday 17 of July 2013 14:34:26 Brad King wrote: On 07/17/2013 07:15 AM, Modestas Vainius wrote: Yes, I do. I fail to see why you would point me to it. Just to be clear, I'm NOT against fixing this bug, I'm against fixing this

Bug#717144: Remove workaround-gcc296-bugs from ctest -T MemCheck

2013-07-17 Thread Mathieu Malaterre
Package: cmake Severity: important By default ctest -T MemCheck runs: 35: MemCheck command: /usr/bin/valgrind -q --tool=memcheck --leak-check=yes --show-reachable=yes --workaround-gcc296-bugs=yes --num-callers=50 However as per documentation: When enabled, assume that reads and writes some

Bug#717144: Remove workaround-gcc296-bugs from ctest -T MemCheck

2013-07-17 Thread Modestas Vainius
Control: severity -1 normal Control: tags -1 upstream wontfix Hello, On Wednesday 17 of July 2013 11:42:12 Mathieu Malaterre wrote: By default ctest -T MemCheck runs: 35: MemCheck command: /usr/bin/valgrind -q --tool=memcheck --leak-check=yes --show-reachable=yes

Bug#717144: Remove workaround-gcc296-bugs from ctest -T MemCheck

2013-07-17 Thread Mathieu Malaterre
Control: severity -1 important On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Modestas Vainius mo...@debian.org wrote: On Wednesday 17 of July 2013 11:42:12 Mathieu Malaterre wrote: By default ctest -T MemCheck runs: 35: MemCheck command: /usr/bin/valgrind -q --tool=memcheck --leak-check=yes

Bug#717144: Remove workaround-gcc296-bugs from ctest -T MemCheck

2013-07-17 Thread Modestas Vainius
Hello, On Wednesday 17 of July 2013 12:05:03 Mathieu Malaterre wrote: Control: severity -1 important What's a reason you play BTS ping pong with me? Changing severity with no additional justification won't change my opinion. On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Modestas Vainius mo...@debian.org

Bug#717144: Remove workaround-gcc296-bugs from ctest -T MemCheck

2013-07-17 Thread Brad King
On 07/17/2013 07:15 AM, Modestas Vainius wrote: Yes, I do. I fail to see why you would point me to it. Just to be clear, I'm NOT against fixing this bug, I'm against fixing this bug via Debian patch. That's it. So either you report it upstream (which will be faster), or I will do it