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 <[email protected]> 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 -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
