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
