On 12 February 2018 at 10:56, Duy Nguyen <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 3:05 AM, Martin Ågren <martin.agren@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 6 February 2018 at 03:13, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 08:28:10PM +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote: >>>> I learned SANITIZE=leak today! It not only catches this but also "dst". >>>> >>>> Jeff is there any ongoing effort to make the test suite pass with >>>> SANITIZE=leak? My t2038 passed, so I went ahead with the full test >>>> suite and saw so many failures. I did see in your original mails that >>>> you focused on t0000 and t0001 only.. >>> >>> Yeah, I did those two scripts to try to prove to myself that the >>> approach was good. But I haven't really pushed it any further. >>> >>> Martin Ågren (cc'd) did some follow-up work, but I think we still have a >>> long way to go. >> >> Agreed. :-) > > Should we mark the test files that pass SANITIZE=leak and run as a sub > testsuite? This way we can start growing it until it covers everything > (unlikely) and make sure people don't break what's already passed. > > Of course I don't expect everybody to run this new make target with > SANITIZE=leak. Travis can do that for us and hopefully have some way > to tell git@vger about new breakages. Makes sense to try to make sure that we don't regress leak-free tests. I don't know what our Travis-budget looks like, but I would volunteer to run something like this periodically using my own cycles. My experience with the innards of our Makefiles and test-lib.sh is non-existant, but from a very cursory look it seems like something as simple as loading GIT_SKIP_TESTS from a blacklist-file might do the trick. I could try to look into it in the next couple of days. Martin
