From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 41788 invoked by alias); 8 Dec 2015 15:28:41 -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 41779 invoked by uid 89); 8 Dec 2015 15:28:40 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx2.suse.de Received: from mx2.suse.de (HELO mx2.suse.de) (195.135.220.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (CAMELLIA256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 08 Dec 2015 15:28:39 +0000 Received: from relay2.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D329AB12; Tue, 8 Dec 2015 15:28:36 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH,RFC] Introduce RUN_UNDER_VALGRIND in test-suite To: Bernd Schmidt , Hans-Peter Nilsson References: <564DDEF2.8090803@suse.cz> <5652DD92.2030202@suse.cz> <56604E93.5050805@redhat.com> Cc: GCC Patches From: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_Li=c5=a1ka?= Message-ID: <5666F723.1030603@suse.cz> Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2015 15:28:00 -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: <56604E93.5050805@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-12/txt/msg00878.txt.bz2 On 12/03/2015 03:15 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote: > 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 Hi. Right, the patch is in queue and can wait for next stage1. I must agree with Hans-Peter Nilsson that we should mainly focus on removal of memory leaks (and other invalid operations) rather that maintaining a list of suppressions. After that, integration with existing configure machine should be easily doable, I guess. I've just run the test-suite (with default languages) and report file was post-processed with my script [1] that groups same back-traces together. Currently we have ~200000 errors, in ~4000 different back-traces. Majority of them (~2600 BTs) are in fortran FE (BT contains 'gfc_'): [2]. The rest contains some issues in CP FE, many GGC invalid read/write operations ([4]) and many memory leaks in gcc.c (for instance option handling). My question is if a bug should be created for all fortran issues and whether it's realistic that they can be eventually fixed in next stage1? Thanks, Martin [1] https://github.com/marxin/script-misc/blob/master/valgrind-grep.py [2] https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0pisUJ80pO1ZjdCVlZoeGZQNjg/view?usp=sharing [3] https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0pisUJ80pO1aFZTWk5sVTBlcHc/view?usp=sharing [4] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68758