Title: #52: CI: Remove dlopen-test from valgrind blacklist
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:52 PM, lslebodn <notificati...@github.com> wrote:
> On (17/10/16 12:34), fidencio wrote:
> >Please, refer to e1a58f3d in the commit message.
> Why? The text is more important. Rest is useless.
Well, you're basically reverting that commit.
But feel free to ignore in any case.
> >This is a genuine question (even in case it's a dumb one), but do we
> really need to call dlclose() in our tests? Can't we relax this in order to
> have a meaningful backtrace?
> Let assume:
> * dlclose was not called
> * libraryA is linked with libtalloc and libtevent
> * libraryB is not linked with libtalloc (even though it should be
> * dlopen test test libraries in following order: 1. libraryA; 2. libraryB
> Result: missing dependency in libraryB would not be found because
> libraryA and its dependencies are still loaded in memory.
Wouldn't make sense to have two tests then? One as it is nowadays. In case
the first passes we run the second one, not calling dlclose() and just
checking for leaks?
See the full comment at
sssd-devel mailing list -- firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sssd-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org