From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 111862 invoked by alias); 3 Dec 2015 14:15:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 111852 invoked by uid 89); 3 Dec 2015 14:15:56 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 03 Dec 2015 14:15:50 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9ACA33298; Thu, 3 Dec 2015 14:15:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn1-7-99.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.7.99]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id tB3EFmMg024298; Thu, 3 Dec 2015 09:15:48 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH,RFC] Introduce RUN_UNDER_VALGRIND in test-suite To: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_Li=c5=a1ka?= , Hans-Peter Nilsson References: <564DDEF2.8090803@suse.cz> <5652DD92.2030202@suse.cz> Cc: GCC Patches From: Bernd Schmidt Message-ID: <56604E93.5050805@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2015 14:15:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5652DD92.2030202@suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-12/txt/msg00441.txt.bz2 On 11/23/2015 10:34 AM, Martin Liška wrote: > On 11/21/2015 05:26 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: >> IIRC you can replace the actual dg-runtest proc with your own >> (implementing a wrapper). Grep aroung, I think we do that >> already. That's certainly preferable instead of touching all >> callers. > > You are right, the suggested patch was over-kill, wrapper should be fine for that. > Currently I've been playing with a bit different approach (suggested by Markus), > where I would like to enable valgrind in gcc.c using an environmental variable. > > Question is if it should replace existing ENABLE_VALGRIND_CHECKING and how to > integrate it with a valgrind suppressions file? This patch still seems to be in the queue. I've been looking at it every now and then, without really forming an opinion. In any case, I think we'll need to postpone this to stage1 at this point. Wouldn't it be better to fix issues first and only then enable running the testsuite with valgrind, rather than make a suppression file? Your latest patch seems to add the option of running the compiler without ENABLE_CHECKING_VALGRIND being defined. Doesn't this run into problems when the support in ggc isn't compiled in? Bernd