|
From: Josef W. <Jos...@gm...> - 2003-03-24 13:10:16
|
On Sunday 23 March 2003 17:03, Nicholas Nethercote wrote: > On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Josef Weidendorfer wrote: > > In my latest calltree version, I introduced an infrastruction to specify > > instrumentation parameters on the basis of a function symbol name. > > [snip] > > Does it make sense to merge this in some way with the error suppression > > stuff? > > By this, I'm guessing you mean: after reading suppressions, if Valgrind > translates a function that is mentioned in a suppression, don't instrument > it because any errors from it will be suppressed anyway? No, I didn't thought about any concrete use cases for other skins. It's more about generalizing the idea of suppressions. I think I first have to work it out in my skin and perhaps propose a patch for the core later on. > Two problems with that: (a, minor) you don't get counts of the number of > errors suppressed, and (b, major) suppressions rely on calling context, so Oh. I have to look at the suppression code more deeply :-) Josef > just considering a function by itself wouldn't work -- errors from it > might need to be suppressed if called from function f(), but not if called > from function g(). > > Or maybe I misinterpreted your question... > > N > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by:Crypto Challenge is now open! > Get cracking and register here for some mind boggling fun and > the chance of winning an Apple iPod: > http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0031en > _______________________________________________ > Valgrind-developers mailing list > Val...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/valgrind-developers |