URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/52
Title: #52: CI: Remove dlopen-test from valgrind blacklist

lslebodn commented:
"""
On (17/10/16 14:26), fidencio wrote:
>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?
>
What would be a purpose of second test?
Leaks are not checked in tests itself but by valgrind.

LS

"""

See the full comment at 
https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/52#issuecomment-254341922
_______________________________________________
sssd-devel mailing list -- sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
To unsubscribe send an email to sssd-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org

Reply via email to