Title: #52: CI: Remove dlopen-test from valgrind blacklist
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:37 PM, lslebodn <notificati...@github.com> wrote:
> On (17/10/16 14:26), fidencio wrote:
> >On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:52 PM, lslebodn <notificati...@github.com>
> >> 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.
> >> 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.
By not calling dlclose() during the second run couldn't you have a "not
meaningless" (part of the) backtrace?
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