|
From: Bart V. A. <bva...@ac...> - 2011-09-11 15:11:48
|
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Florian Krohm <br...@ac...> wrote: > But shouldn't those errors that are not shown be counted as suppressed? No. In this context "suppressed" refers to "matching a suppression pattern". > Currently, they are not. Case in point is a valgrind report like this: > > ERROR SUMMARY: 9 errors from 3 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0) > > with 3 errors actually shown. (I'm not making up this example for sake > of argument.) > If "suppressed" refers to only those errors not shown because of a > suppression pattern then we ought to either change the total number of > errors to the number actually shown or show the duplicates. > > ERROR SUMMARY: 9 errors from 3 contexts (suppressed: 0 from 0, > duplicate: 6 from 3) > > But this might not be worth the effort. I really think the error summary > should correctly some up what is shown in the report. Because that is > what most people would expect. All what I've found in the manual about error reporting is this (http://valgrind.org/docs/manual/manual-core.html): "Valgrind remembers all error reports. When an error is detected, it is compared against old reports, to see if it is a duplicate. If so, the error is noted, but no further commentary is emitted. This avoids you being swamped with bazillions of duplicate error reports." My preference is not to change Valgrind's output but instead to document clearly what the meaning is of the reported numbers. Bart. |