[SSSD] [RFC] Add basic support for CI test execution

Nikolai Kondrashov Nikolai.Kondrashov at redhat.com
Thu Jun 12 19:07:35 UTC 2014


On 06/11/2014 05:28 PM, Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
> On 06/11/2014 03:46 PM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>> On (11/06/14 14:52), Nikolai Kondrashov wrote:
>>> On 06/11/2014 10:52 AM, Lukas Slebodnik wrote:
>>>>> +declare -r DEBUG_CFLAGS="-O0 -g3"
>>>> In my opinion, sssd should be built without optimisation only for code
>>>> coverage. Some warnings are not visible without optimisation.
>>>
>>> Wouldn't optimization mess with Valgrind traces?
>>> Should we maybe do a separate build just to detect warnings?
>>>
>> no.
>> I am used to debugging optimized code. The same with valgrind.
>> It is not so comfortable, but it is possible.
>> Some bugs are caused by compiler optimisation and would not be catched by CI.
>> You can use different CFLAGS for different task.
>
> I don't have much experience reading Valgrind traces for code with
> optimization enabled, so I can't say if this is justified. Perhaps we can
> enable optimization for the start and then see how it goes. I would like to
> hear opinions from others as well.

I tried running Valgrind on a build with -O0 and -O2 and then comparing the
results. I didn't see any serious differences in reports. Mostly missing stack
frames (due to inlining, I guess) and functions copied under suffixed name
(such as "constprop").

To me it doesn't look too bad, so unless anyone has anything against it, I'll
make "DEBUG" build use -O2. This will affect tests which run under Valgrind
and the "distcheck" target.

Thank you Lukas for the suggestion, I think it will be useful.

Now, I wonder, what we should do with warnings. So far, CI doesn't request any
specific warnings and doesn't do anything with the default ones if they
appear.

Shall we perhaps have a test that would fail if there are any warnings?
Shall we enable or disable some specific warnings?

Nick



More information about the sssd-devel mailing list