|
From: Jim M. <ji...@me...> - 2006-07-21 14:56:47
|
Hi, I've searched everywhere but the code, trying to determine whether valgrind suppression syntax allows one to ignore e.g., one or more consecutive matching backtrace entries. Is there a way? For example, if I have four suppression blocks, all nearly identical, except that while the first has only one instance of "obj:/lib/ld-2.3.6.so", the others have 2, 3, and 4 adjacent instances, respectively. It'd be nice not to have to repeat the same 20-line block 4 times. Of course, there is already a wildcard notation, but that applies only to a single frame entry. Jim |
|
From: Nicholas N. <nj...@cs...> - 2006-07-23 10:33:35
|
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006, Jim Meyering wrote: > I've searched everywhere but the code, trying to determine whether > valgrind suppression syntax allows one to ignore e.g., one or more > consecutive matching backtrace entries. Is there a way? > > For example, if I have four suppression blocks, all nearly identical, > except that while the first has only one instance of "obj:/lib/ld-2.3.6.so", > the others have 2, 3, and 4 adjacent instances, respectively. > It'd be nice not to have to repeat the same 20-line block 4 times. > > Of course, there is already a wildcard notation, but that > applies only to a single frame entry. I think you have to have the repeats. Suppression syntax isn't that flexible, unfortunately. Nick |
|
From: Julian S. <js...@ac...> - 2006-07-23 10:38:40
|
> > Of course, there is already a wildcard notation, but that > > applies only to a single frame entry. > > I think you have to have the repeats. Suppression syntax isn't that > flexible, unfortunately. It's a frequently-requested feature though. Perhaps one we should consider doing something about. J |