Re: RFA: valgrind and the test suite, take 2

[Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>]

On Friday 19 February 2010 20:02:40, Tom Tromey wrote:
> >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com> writes:
> 
> Pedro> On Friday 19 February 2010 17:23:52, Tom Tromey wrote:
> >> This patch adds support for valgrind to the test suite.  Unlike my last
> >> patch along these lines, this one adds value above just setting GDB.
> 
> Pedro> Couldn't this be done with a board file?
> 
> Maybe, but then it won't be in the tree, and it won't be documented.

Those are both fixable.  I don't know if you seen my other
more recent email.

> If that is an objection, could you explain why you'd prefer it to be
> done that way?

It's not an objection that I'll spend much more energy
defending, but FYI, I prefer not to hack specific solutions
when a more general solution already exists.  Another advantange
is that you can tweak it to your hearts content without
having to touch generic testsuite code.  If it allows things
that a board file doesn't, then it's another story.  But maybe
that could be considered a problem of missing hooks instead.

> The point of doing it this way is to encourage more frequent runs using
> valgrind.  

What's wrong with encouraging testing with a board file?
We do the same for local gdbserver testing.  We could come
up with N other board files that did similar things.

> I find bugs with valgrind so often that I wish this mode of
> running were the default.

If it's not going to be made the default, then that's
irrelevant.

-- 
Pedro Alves