Valgrind supppressions #9633
Valgrind supppressions #9633
Conversation
… time The tests where concatenating the string to run particular daemons together without a space causing the whole thing to not work. Signed-off-by: Donald Sharp <sharpd@nvidia.com>
When running topotests w/ valgrind and we call the check_for_memleaks() function call, tests were aborting because valgrind was finding a bunch of memory leaks. The whole point of valgrind is to not stop the tests when we find a memory leak. Signed-off-by: Donald Sharp <sharpd@nvidia.com>
💚 Basic BGPD CI results: SUCCESS, 0 tests failedResults table
For details, please contact louberger |
Continuous Integration Result: FAILEDContinuous Integration Result: FAILEDSee below for issues. This is a comment from an automated CI system. Get source / Pull Request: SuccessfulBuilding Stage: SuccessfulBasic Tests: FailedTopotests debian 10 amd64 part 5: Failed (click for details)Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 5: No useful log foundSuccessful on other platforms/tests
|
|
ci:rerun |
Continuous Integration Result: SUCCESSFULCongratulations, this patch passed basic tests Tested-by: NetDEF / OpenSourceRouting.org CI System CI System Testrun URL: https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-231/ This is a comment from an automated CI system. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The intent of the code as written was to report and fail any test where valgrind finds errors. This is only triggered when the tests are run with the valgrind, and this only happens when the option being discussed here is specified, so the user is looking for these errors. I do not agree that the point of valgrind here is to ignore memleaks.
|
Running valgrind against all tests is impossible currently without the second commit. As that it will error out after the first test. This is fundamentally broken and must be fixed. If this is not the right approach then please give us a PR where the right approach is used. |
|
Superseded by #9633 |
see individual commits