URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/52 Title: #52: CI: Remove dlopen-test from valgrind blacklist
fidencio commented: """ 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> > 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. > By not calling dlclose() during the second run couldn't you have a "not meaningless" (part of the) backtrace? Best Regards, -- Fabiano Fidêncio """ See the full comment at https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/52#issuecomment-254343360
_______________________________________________ sssd-devel mailing list -- sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org To unsubscribe send an email to sssd-devel-le...@lists.fedorahosted.org
