On Sun, 2018-08-05 at 22:13 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 08/05/2018 09:48 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> > What am I missing here? Why can't this be put in RPM macros? Then when
> > the situation changes in the future, there's only one place to change.
>
> There already is such a macro, %{valgrind_arches}, but it may not
> accurately reflect the suitability of the run-time behavior of valgrind
> on a particular architecture. For example, the undefinedness tracking
> might not be sufficiently accurate for the testsuite of a specific
> package, so running the testsuite under valgrind gives false positives.
Right. %{valgrind_arches} is the set of arches that valgrind supports.
So you should be able to use it to select whether or not to add
valgrind support to your package or run your package check testsuite
under valgrind. But there can always be bugs that are specific to a
specific architecture, package or testsuite. If there is such a bug and
you have to workaround running your package testsuite against valgrind
on some specific architecture, then please do report a bug against
valgrind. No guarantees it can be fixed quickly. But we can only fix
issues we know about.
Thanks,
Mark
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/W6WXAMWASFOM5Y2BEPKHMERJA4QLHHVU/
