From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 60669 invoked by alias); 15 Nov 2016 22:07:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 58552 invoked by uid 89); 15 Nov 2016 22:07:08 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:752, chasing, libpython X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 22:07:07 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78FD7550B2; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 22:07:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn03.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.3]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id uAFM74R8032562; Tue, 15 Nov 2016 17:07:04 -0500 Subject: Re: Use of mcheck during GDB development To: Simon Marchi References: <0d376831c2e0096f3620af20182fddfc@polymtl.ca> Cc: Florian Weimer , gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 22:07:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <0d376831c2e0096f3620af20182fddfc@polymtl.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-11/txt/msg00403.txt.bz2 On 11/15/2016 09:58 PM, Simon Marchi wrote: > On 2016-11-15 15:50, Pedro Alves wrote: >> Yeah, or address sanitizer, which would be closer to being >> something you could always have on. Valgrind is too heavyweight >> for everyday use. I believe we're not asan clean yet, unfortunately, >> but we're slowly getting there. > > I occasionally build GDB with ASAN when chasing specific bugs, and it's > been clean for my practical purposes. Except for many warnings in > libpython at startup, I don't know whether they're real or false positives. I meant when running the GDB testsuite against it. Do you know whether asan vs non-asan is regression free for you? I haven't tried in a while. Thanks, Pedro Alves