On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 03:08:39PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote: > On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 04:50:09PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 02:40:34PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote: > > > > > While working on another topic that cleared up some leaks, I wanted to > > > see if any new tests became leak-free, so I ran: > > > > > > $ make SANITIZE=leak > > > $ make GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK=check GIT_TEST_OPTS=-i test > > > > Is that exactly what you ran? Because I'd expect the second "make" > > invocation to rebuild Git _without_ SANITIZE=leak enabled in that case. > > (Though I would have then expected most of the scripts to complain > > loudly about the mismatch; did you "cd t" in between the two?). > > Argh. No, I wrote instead: > > make SANITIZE=leak > make -C t GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK=check ... test Ah, that makes sense. The sample command in the commit message of the first patch has the same situation, I think. (I don't usually run "make test" from "t" myself because I prefer "prove", and an explicit "make test" skips the DEFAULT_TEST_TARGET magic). -Peff
