Re: [PATCH] valgrind-tests: Better option handling.

Hi Simon, > > Assuming I am a GNU package maintainer and I read this paragraph. How do > > I know whether my package uses the "old serial test harness"? Can I > > determine this by looking at configure.ac? Or at the main Makefile.am? > > I suspect almost everyone is using the parallel test harnes

Re: [PATCH] valgrind-tests: Better option handling.

Log +++ b/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,11 @@ +2021-05-14 Simon Josefsson + + valgrind-tests: Doc fix and introduce AM_VALGRINDFLAGS. + * doc/valgrind-tests.texi (Using valgrind automatically): Clarify + when the parallel vs serial test harness is used, suggested by + Bruno Haible . + * m4/valgrind-tests

Re: [PATCH] valgrind-tests: Better option handling.

Hi Simon, > +Replace @code{LOG_COMPILER} with @code{TESTS_ENVIRONMENT} if you are > +using the old serial test harness. Assuming I am a GNU package maintainer and I read this paragraph. How do I know whether my package uses the "old serial test harness"? Can I determine this by looking at configu

Re: [PATCH] valgrind-tests: Better option handling.

Further testing quickly found a small bug, pushed. /Simon From 784fdea59920d69998b59ab326c11a8a2a93ef88 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Simon Josefsson Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 15:03:25 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] valgrind-tests: Fix LOG_VALGRIND when valgrind is missing. * m4/valgrind-tests.m4: Clear

[PATCH] valgrind-tests: Better option handling.

e same way as before. The reason for the change is to enable end-users to be able to change VALGRINDFLAGS during a 'make check' phase if they want. /Simon From e0a1ea5e1d20918f6850a2ab8cb86c691cd8b46c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Simon Josefsson Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 14:17:20 +0200 S

Re: valgrind-tests

Simon Josefsson wrote: > Btw, I just realized the module is confusingly named, since > modules/*-tests is used in gnulib to designate gnulib module self-tests. > Nothing appears to break, and I can't think of a better name right now > ('valgrind' is a bit too general and non-descriptive of what the

valgrind-tests: Really enable the valgrind options test

The "checking for valgrind options for tests..." tests in module valgrind-tests does not work: It says "yes" even when these options don't work. Due to a reference to undefined variable gl_valgrind_opts. 2021-01-02 Bruno Haible valgrind-tests: Really enable

Re: valgrind-tests and suppression files

On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 5:40 PM Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote: > > Is there any built-in support in the valgrind-tests module for > suppression files? For example, if I want to run my tests under > valgrind (if available), I write > > LOG_COMPILER = $(VALGRIND) > > o

valgrind-tests and suppression files

Is there any built-in support in the valgrind-tests module for suppression files? For example, if I want to run my tests under valgrind (if available), I write LOG_COMPILER = $(VALGRIND) or, in case I use libtool, LOG_COMPILER = $(LIBTOOL) --mode=execute $(VALGRIND) But how to add valgrind

Re: Problem with valgrind-tests: relies on bash not causing error

On 5 August 2017 at 19:46, Paul Eggert wrote: > Thanks, I installed the attached somewhat-more-fancier patch; does it work > for you? > ​That works fine; thanks very much. -- https://rrt.sc3d.org

Re: Problem with valgrind-tests: relies on bash not causing error

Thanks, I installed the attached somewhat-more-fancier patch; does it work for you? >From 59c181fa400ead71e9a28e3db9abc107f8fc9ea3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Paul Eggert Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2017 11:45:10 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] valgrind-tests: use ls, and cache * m4/valgrind-tests.m4: Test

Re: Problem with valgrind-tests: relies on bash not causing error

On 12 April 2017 at 13:36, Reuben Thomas wrote: > The test for whether to use valgrind runs: > > /bin/bash -c 'exit 0' > > This looks pretty harmless; unfortunately, bash itself causes problems: > > $ valgrind -q --error-exitcode=1 --leak-check=full /bin/bash -c 'exit 0' > ==32197== Invalid free(

Re: Problem with valgrind-tests: relies on bash not causing error

nvolved to resolve the incompatibility between bash and valgrind, I > would like to ask to have gnulib's valgrind-tests changed upstream. As this > change amounts simply in replacing $(SHELL) by > any other well-known utility, the changes to be done are trivial. /bin/true seems fine, doesn't it? Have a nice day, Berny

Re: Problem with valgrind-tests: relies on bash not causing error

proposed solution would work for anyone who is aware of this problem, it won't work for an unaware user who would simply run ./configure, wondering why valgrind isn't detected. As it seems rather involved to resolve the incompatibility between bash and valgrind, I would like to ask to

Re: Problem with valgrind-tests: relies on bash not causing error

On 12 April 2017 at 15:23, Bruno Haible wrote: > Hi Reuben, > > > This is a separate issue, though: the real problem here is that a way is > > needed to run libtool wrappers with libtool > > In GNU gettext, I never succeeded in making valgrind work with the libtool > wrappers; instead I noted >

Re: Problem with valgrind-tests: relies on bash not causing error

Hi Reuben, > This is a separate issue, though: the real problem here is that a way is > needed to run libtool wrappers with libtool In GNU gettext, I never succeeded in making valgrind work with the libtool wrappers; instead I noted # You should build with --disable-shared when using valgrind.

Re: Problem with valgrind-tests: relies on bash not causing error

Hi Reuben, > The test for whether to use valgrind runs: > > /bin/bash -c 'exit 0' > > This looks pretty harmless; unfortunately, bash itself causes problems: I'd suggest that you change m4/valgrind-tests.m4 to use the AC_CACHE_CHECK macro instead of "lone" AC_MSG_CHECKING and AC_MSG_RESULT invo

Re: Problem with valgrind-tests: relies on bash not causing error

On 12 April 2017 at 13:47, Reuben Thomas wrote: > > > I guess one further option is to fix the bug in bash, and then call > valgrind with --trace-children=yes. Maybe that would be cleanest and > simplest (albeit we'll need a workaround until fixed bash is widely > available). > ​I tested bash 4.

Re: Problem with valgrind-tests: relies on bash not causing error

l my tests and pass the value of $VALGRIND in, but I would appreciate suggestions here. I find valgrind invaluable, so making it easy to run such tests (so that it's just a question of adding the "valgrind-tests" module to one's project and making a couple of Makefile.am sett

Problem with valgrind-tests: relies on bash not causing error

The test for whether to use valgrind runs: /bin/bash -c 'exit 0' This looks pretty harmless; unfortunately, bash itself causes problems: $ valgrind -q --error-exitcode=1 --leak-check=full /bin/bash -c 'exit 0' ==32197== Invalid free() / delete / delete[] / realloc() ==32197==at 0x4C2ED5B: fr

Re: [PATCH] valgrind-tests: fixed misleading help message

On 05/30/2014 01:47 PM, Kieran Colford wrote: > The help message generated by a configure script using this module > implied that valgrind was disabled by default, which it wasn't. > Left the auto enablement in and patched the help message like: > s/enable/disable/ > --- > ChangeLog|

[PATCH] valgrind-tests: fixed misleading help message

files changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/ChangeLog b/ChangeLog index 13ea1a8..b9a4501 100644 --- a/ChangeLog +++ b/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,11 @@ +2014-05-30 Kieran Colford + + valgrind-tests: fixed misleading help message + The help message generated by a configure s

Re: [PATCH] valgrind-tests: fixed misleading help message.

On 14-05-30 06:59 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote: > On 05/28/2014 04:53 PM, Kieran Colford wrote: >> The help message generated by a configure script using this module >> implied that valgrind was disabled by default, which it wasn't. >> Patched so that valgrind is in fact disabled in accordance with th

Re: [PATCH] valgrind-tests: fixed misleading help message.

On 05/28/2014 04:53 PM, Kieran Colford wrote: > The help message generated by a configure script using this module > implied that valgrind was disabled by default, which it wasn't. > Patched so that valgrind is in fact disabled in accordance with the > documentation. Note doc/valgrind-tests.texi d

[PATCH] valgrind-tests: fixed misleading help message.

files changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/ChangeLog b/ChangeLog index d76591a..25bfed0 100644 --- a/ChangeLog +++ b/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,11 @@ +2014-05-28 Kieran Colford + + valgrind-tests: fixed misleading help message. + The help message generated by a conf

[PATCH] valgrind-tests: fixed misleading help message.

files changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/ChangeLog b/ChangeLog index fc8a081..f2ccae0 100644 --- a/ChangeLog +++ b/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@ +2014-05-28 Kieran Colford + + valgrind-tests: fixed misleading help message. + The help message generated by a configure s

Re: Support for options in valgrind-tests

On 17 March 2011 06:27, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > I suggest you guys check out the parallel-tests driver from recent > Automake.  It provides makefile variables for specifying a command > to run specific tests, plus options to that.  That can be used for > valgrind. It would certainly be nice if t

Re: Support for options in valgrind-tests

I suggest you guys check out the parallel-tests driver from recent Automake. It provides makefile variables for specifying a command to run specific tests, plus options to that. That can be used for valgrind. Quoting the documentation: For tests that match an extension `.EXT' listed in `TEST

Re: Support for options in valgrind-tests

On 16 March 2011 23:42, Bernd Becker wrote: > Am 16.03.2011 22:52, schrieb Reuben Thomas: >> Sounds like what's needed is a pair of variables that works like >> CPPFLAGS/AM_CPPFLAGS. >> > how about an approach passing a variable into make like > test_a_VALGRIND_OPTIONS=foo make check > then you sa

Re: Support for options in valgrind-tests

Am 16.03.2011 22:52, schrieb Reuben Thomas: > On 16 March 2011 21:22, Bernd Becker wrote: >> Hi Thomas, >> >> Am 12.03.2011 18:41, schrieb Reuben Thomas: >>> Another day, another nice surprise from gnulib: it supports valgrind, >>> so I can remove my own code for that...only, no I can't, because I

Re: Support for options in valgrind-tests

On 16 March 2011 21:22, Bernd Becker wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > Am 12.03.2011 18:41, schrieb Reuben Thomas: >> Another day, another nice surprise from gnulib: it supports valgrind, >> so I can remove my own code for that...only, no I can't, because I add >> options (I add --error-exitcode=1 --leak-ch

Re: Support for options in valgrind-tests

Hi Thomas, Am 12.03.2011 18:41, schrieb Reuben Thomas: > Another day, another nice surprise from gnulib: it supports valgrind, > so I can remove my own code for that...only, no I can't, because I add > options (I add --error-exitcode=1 --leak-check=full). > > So, two alternative suggestions: > > 1

Support for options in valgrind-tests

Another day, another nice surprise from gnulib: it supports valgrind, so I can remove my own code for that...only, no I can't, because I add options (I add --error-exitcode=1 --leak-check=full). So, two alternative suggestions: 1. Agree that these options are must-haves (rationale: one's code sho