| Summary: | Suppressions directory | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Developer tools] valgrind | Reporter: | Andrés Roldán <aroldan> |
| Component: | general | Assignee: | Julian Seward <jseward> |
| Status: | CONFIRMED --- | ||
| Severity: | wishlist | CC: | aroldan, AsDaGo, bugzilla, gdesmott, mark, rrt, sam |
| Priority: | NOR | ||
| Version: | 2.3 CVS | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Platform: | Compiled Sources | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Latest Commit: | Version Fixed In: | ||
| Sentry Crash Report: | |||
| Attachments: |
Patch which fixes the bug
Patch which fixes the bug (including documentation) |
||
Hmm, interesting. I think you'd need a way to be able to ignore a given suppression file in that directory. I'm collecting a list of potential suppression improvements, which I'll hopefully act on one day. I've added this to the list. Thanks. *** Bug 93377 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** *** Bug 93379 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** *** Bug 93385 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Further, it'd be lovely if --suppressions accepted a directory argument and loaded all the suppressions files in that directory. My use case is for setting default suppressions in VALGRIND_OPTS, which at the moment I have to populate manually each time I add a suppressions file to my (thankfully small) collection. Created attachment 122747 [details]
Patch which fixes the bug
Hello, I've written a patch to fix the bug. Please see the attachment (created with git format-patch). Apparently, I'm supposed to use Phabricator for patches. It's usage seems pretty complicated though, so I've just used an attachment. Is that OK? Thanks, Asher (In reply to Asher Gordon from comment #7) > Apparently, I'm supposed to use Phabricator for patches. It's usage seems > pretty complicated though, so I've just used an attachment. Is that OK? Yes, thanks! Phabricator is used by the KDE project, but valgrind isn't really a KDE project, we just use their bug tracker for the project. Created attachment 122828 [details]
Patch which fixes the bug (including documentation)
Hello,
I've updated the patch to include changes to the documentation (docs/xml/manual-core.xml).
I hope this gets incorporated into Valgrind soon! :)
Enjoy,
Asher
Hello, I noticed that the valgrind-developers mailing list [1] has some patch emails. Should I send my patch there also so that it can reach more developers? Thanks, Asher [1] https://sourceforge.net/p/valgrind/mailman/valgrind-developers/ (In reply to Asher Gordon from comment #10) Hi, > I noticed that the valgrind-developers mailing list [1] has some patch > emails. Should I send my patch there also so that it can reach more > developers? I haven't received any reply on this. It looks like a lot of the emails are automatically generated from commits, but there are some patch emails which look like they were sent with git send-email. I'm going to send a patch email to the mailing list so that it can hopefully reach more developers. Asher (In reply to Asher Gordon from comment #11) > I'm going to send a patch email to the mailing list so that it can hopefully > reach more developers. Actually never mind. Apparently, I can't send anything to the mailing list unless I'm subscribed (which I don't particularly want to do). :-( Asher I realize it's been a little while, but is there any chance that this patch could be applied soon? I think it's a useful feature, and hardly likely to break compatibility or anyone's workflows, so I don't see any reason not to implement it. ping |
It would be great if valgrind provided a directory (say /usr/lib/valgrind/supp. d/) where specific programs could put arbitrarily suppressions files for their execution and valgrind could interpret and concatenate the files stored there. A good example is Python2.{3,4} which provides a valgrind suppression file and it needs to be added by the user or the OS packager in a distribution-independent suppression file. It's just a thought and therefore marked as "wishlist". Thanks.