On (24/06/14 08:55), Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 07:34:31PM +0300, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
> On 06/11/2014 05:54 PM, Pavel Reichl wrote:
> >On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 17:28 +0300, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
> >>
> >>>>Sure, there are various ways to make Valgrind happy, although none of
them are
> >>>>very easy. The important thing is that we would have a way to track
it now.
> >>>>This way, or another we should arrive to zero Valgrind errors.
> >>>>
> >>>Ignoring is not a good way for CI. We need to find a viable solution.
> >>
> >>I agree and I'm not saying we should ignore it always. This ignoring is
to
> >>enable CI earlier, so we can get at least *some* tests to run. And having CI
> >>running these tests (even though they're ignored) will make fixing the
> >>failures easier, than without the CI. If only for the ability to trigger
> >>background runs on various distros at once. Once we have the issues fixed we
> >>will enforce the check.
> >>
> >
> >Is it viable option to somehow "store" current problems found by
> >valgrind/clang/other tools and just report the new ones?
> >
> >Doing so would allow us to use all benefits of this tools without need
> >to promptly fix issues created over years and we could use this approach
> >to mask false positives.
>
> We can use Valgrind suppressions to achieve something close to this. Clang
> doesn't seem to have such facility, but it is probably possible to implement
> one which would process resulting XML files.
Kamil Dudka of Red Hat (kdudka(a)r.c) has developed a tool that does exactly this
diffing for Coverity results. When we talked about this tool about a
year ago maybe, the didn't have the same functionality for Clang
diffing, but maybe times have changed :-)
Would you like to ping him or should I ?
It is opensource.
https://git.fedorahosted.org/git/codescan-diff.git
amd already in fedora repositories
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=18043
LS