Re: valgrind follow up

пт, 29 апр. 2022 г. в 17:39, Willy Tarreau : > Hi Ilya, > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 04:35:03PM +0500, ??? wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I added sample in my branch: CI: github actions: add valgrind smoke > tests · > > chipitsine/haproxy@7cd7f4a > > < >

Re: valgrind follow up

On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 02:43:24PM +0200, Tim Düsterhus wrote: > > Anyway your test is useful in that it reported quite a significant number > > of entries at once, we rarely see so many, so it will be a good starting > > point about new locations to look for. > > Those in Ilya's test are "false

Re: valgrind follow up

Willy, On 4/29/22 14:39, Willy Tarreau wrote: However once we manage to get rid of all of them, it would be interesting to enable them in the CI so that new regressions can be caught. But until this happens, it would only be reports for known failures. I agree and I planned to propose that

Re: valgrind follow up

Hi Ilya, On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 04:35:03PM +0500, ??? wrote: > Hello, > > I added sample in my branch: CI: github actions: add valgrind smoke tests · > chipitsine/haproxy@7cd7f4a > > > here's its

valgrind follow up

Hello, I added sample in my branch: CI: github actions: add valgrind smoke tests · chipitsine/haproxy@7cd7f4a here's its run: VTest · chipitsine/haproxy@7cd7f4a (github.com)