On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Martin Mathieson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Evan Huus <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I've been playing around in my head for a while now with the idea of >> running fuzz tests under valgrind. I notice the fuzz-test script >> already sets a bunch of environment variables for memory checking, so >> I'm not sure if valgrind would really add anything. >> >> How extensive are the memory checks turned on by the fuzz-test script? >> Would valgrind be a useful addition, or would it be mostly redundant? >> >> Thanks, >> Evan > > > I'm not sure either, but out of the 3 problems reported by valgrind that I > just fixed: > - 1 was writing outside of allocated data (which the canary checks may have > picked up on) > - 2 were reading/displaying/branching-based-upon uninitialized data (which I > don't expect other types of checks would spot) > > Martin
Basic support added in revision 44024, so it's there if people want to use it. I don't know if it would be worth turning on for the build-bot, as it does slow down the check considerably, but it will probably catch a few more errors. Evan ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
