* [PATCH] t: remove unexpected SANITIZE_LEAK variables
@ 2025-05-20 14:40 Karthik Nayak
2025-05-20 21:16 ` Justin Tobler
2025-05-22 6:06 ` Jeff King
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Karthik Nayak @ 2025-05-20 14:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git; +Cc: stolee, Karthik Nayak
As of 1fc7ddf35b (test-lib: unconditionally enable leak checking,
2024-11-20), both the `GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK` and
`TEST_PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK` variables no longer have any meaning, the
leak checks are enabled by default. However, some newly added tests
include them by mistake. Let's clean this up.
Signed-off-by: Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com>
---
t/perf/p5313-pack-objects.sh | 3 ---
t/perf/p5314-name-hash.sh | 3 ---
t/t6601-path-walk.sh | 2 --
3 files changed, 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/t/perf/p5313-pack-objects.sh b/t/perf/p5313-pack-objects.sh
index be5229a0ec..786a2c1c6f 100755
--- a/t/perf/p5313-pack-objects.sh
+++ b/t/perf/p5313-pack-objects.sh
@@ -3,9 +3,6 @@
test_description='Tests pack performance using bitmaps'
. ./perf-lib.sh
-GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK=0
-export GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK
-
test_perf_large_repo
test_expect_success 'create rev input' '
diff --git a/t/perf/p5314-name-hash.sh b/t/perf/p5314-name-hash.sh
index 4ef0ba7711..235cdfc824 100755
--- a/t/perf/p5314-name-hash.sh
+++ b/t/perf/p5314-name-hash.sh
@@ -3,9 +3,6 @@
test_description='Tests pack performance using bitmaps'
. ./perf-lib.sh
-GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK=0
-export GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK
-
test_perf_large_repo
test_size 'paths at head' '
diff --git a/t/t6601-path-walk.sh b/t/t6601-path-walk.sh
index c89b0f1e19..8d187f7279 100755
--- a/t/t6601-path-walk.sh
+++ b/t/t6601-path-walk.sh
@@ -1,7 +1,5 @@
#!/bin/sh
-TEST_PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK=true
-
test_description='direct path-walk API tests'
. ./test-lib.sh
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] t: remove unexpected SANITIZE_LEAK variables
2025-05-20 14:40 [PATCH] t: remove unexpected SANITIZE_LEAK variables Karthik Nayak
@ 2025-05-20 21:16 ` Justin Tobler
2025-05-20 22:09 ` Junio C Hamano
2025-05-22 6:06 ` Jeff King
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Justin Tobler @ 2025-05-20 21:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Karthik Nayak; +Cc: git, stolee
On 25/05/20 04:40PM, Karthik Nayak wrote:
> As of 1fc7ddf35b (test-lib: unconditionally enable leak checking,
> 2024-11-20), both the `GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK` and
> `TEST_PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK` variables no longer have any meaning, the
> leak checks are enabled by default. However, some newly added tests
> include them by mistake. Let's clean this up.
Indeed, both `GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK` and
`TEST_PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK` appear not have any purpose anymore.
Removing all remaining instances where they appear makes sense and from
a quick search it looks like this patch got them all. So this looks good
to me.
-Justin
>
> Signed-off-by: Karthik Nayak <karthik.188@gmail.com>
> ---
> t/perf/p5313-pack-objects.sh | 3 ---
> t/perf/p5314-name-hash.sh | 3 ---
> t/t6601-path-walk.sh | 2 --
> 3 files changed, 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/t/perf/p5313-pack-objects.sh b/t/perf/p5313-pack-objects.sh
> index be5229a0ec..786a2c1c6f 100755
> --- a/t/perf/p5313-pack-objects.sh
> +++ b/t/perf/p5313-pack-objects.sh
> @@ -3,9 +3,6 @@
> test_description='Tests pack performance using bitmaps'
> . ./perf-lib.sh
>
> -GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK=0
> -export GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK
> -
> test_perf_large_repo
>
> test_expect_success 'create rev input' '
> diff --git a/t/perf/p5314-name-hash.sh b/t/perf/p5314-name-hash.sh
> index 4ef0ba7711..235cdfc824 100755
> --- a/t/perf/p5314-name-hash.sh
> +++ b/t/perf/p5314-name-hash.sh
> @@ -3,9 +3,6 @@
> test_description='Tests pack performance using bitmaps'
> . ./perf-lib.sh
>
> -GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK=0
> -export GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK
> -
> test_perf_large_repo
>
> test_size 'paths at head' '
> diff --git a/t/t6601-path-walk.sh b/t/t6601-path-walk.sh
> index c89b0f1e19..8d187f7279 100755
> --- a/t/t6601-path-walk.sh
> +++ b/t/t6601-path-walk.sh
> @@ -1,7 +1,5 @@
> #!/bin/sh
>
> -TEST_PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK=true
> -
> test_description='direct path-walk API tests'
>
> . ./test-lib.sh
>
>
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] t: remove unexpected SANITIZE_LEAK variables
2025-05-20 21:16 ` Justin Tobler
@ 2025-05-20 22:09 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2025-05-20 22:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Justin Tobler; +Cc: Karthik Nayak, git, stolee
Justin Tobler <jltobler@gmail.com> writes:
> On 25/05/20 04:40PM, Karthik Nayak wrote:
>> As of 1fc7ddf35b (test-lib: unconditionally enable leak checking,
>> 2024-11-20), both the `GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK` and
>> `TEST_PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK` variables no longer have any meaning, the
>> leak checks are enabled by default. However, some newly added tests
>> include them by mistake. Let's clean this up.
>
> Indeed, both `GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK` and
> `TEST_PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK` appear not have any purpose anymore.
> Removing all remaining instances where they appear makes sense and from
> a quick search it looks like this patch got them all. So this looks good
> to me.
Thanks, both.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] t: remove unexpected SANITIZE_LEAK variables
2025-05-20 14:40 [PATCH] t: remove unexpected SANITIZE_LEAK variables Karthik Nayak
2025-05-20 21:16 ` Justin Tobler
@ 2025-05-22 6:06 ` Jeff King
2025-05-22 6:09 ` Jeff King
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jeff King @ 2025-05-22 6:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Karthik Nayak; +Cc: git, stolee
On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 04:40:12PM +0200, Karthik Nayak wrote:
> As of 1fc7ddf35b (test-lib: unconditionally enable leak checking,
> 2024-11-20), both the `GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK` and
> `TEST_PASSES_SANITIZE_LEAK` variables no longer have any meaning, the
> leak checks are enabled by default. However, some newly added tests
> include them by mistake. Let's clean this up.
Thanks, I saw these recently while looking at another topic and was
surprised. I hadn't yet confirmed that they truly are pointless, so I'm
glad that you did. :)
As a side note, we do still use the SANITIZE_LEAK prereq in a few
places, and I believe that it does actually work. It might be nice to
clean up any leaks in those few spots, though we probably want to keep
the prereq around forever (e.g., if you introduce a test which shows off
a leak and then fixes it later). All orthogonal to your patch, though,
which looks good to me.
-Peff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] t: remove unexpected SANITIZE_LEAK variables
2025-05-22 6:06 ` Jeff King
@ 2025-05-22 6:09 ` Jeff King
2025-05-22 9:06 ` Karthik Nayak
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jeff King @ 2025-05-22 6:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Karthik Nayak; +Cc: git, stolee
On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 02:06:26AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> As a side note, we do still use the SANITIZE_LEAK prereq in a few
> places, and I believe that it does actually work. It might be nice to
> clean up any leaks in those few spots, though we probably want to keep
> the prereq around forever (e.g., if you introduce a test which shows off
> a leak and then fixes it later). All orthogonal to your patch, though,
> which looks good to me.
Ah, nevermind. These are all due to 8415595203 (t5601: work around leak
sanitizer issue, 2024-11-20). They are leak-free (and the tests pass on
my system), but apparently some upstream bug can cause issues.
-Peff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] t: remove unexpected SANITIZE_LEAK variables
2025-05-22 6:09 ` Jeff King
@ 2025-05-22 9:06 ` Karthik Nayak
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Karthik Nayak @ 2025-05-22 9:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff King; +Cc: git, stolee
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 807 bytes --]
Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 02:06:26AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
>
>> As a side note, we do still use the SANITIZE_LEAK prereq in a few
>> places, and I believe that it does actually work. It might be nice to
>> clean up any leaks in those few spots, though we probably want to keep
>> the prereq around forever (e.g., if you introduce a test which shows off
>> a leak and then fixes it later). All orthogonal to your patch, though,
>> which looks good to me.
>
> Ah, nevermind. These are all due to 8415595203 (t5601: work around leak
> sanitizer issue, 2024-11-20). They are leak-free (and the tests pass on
> my system), but apparently some upstream bug can cause issues.
>
> -Peff
Yup. Someday in the future we can cleanup the whole thing. That would be
nice!
- Karthik
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 690 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2025-05-22 9:06 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2025-05-20 14:40 [PATCH] t: remove unexpected SANITIZE_LEAK variables Karthik Nayak
2025-05-20 21:16 ` Justin Tobler
2025-05-20 22:09 ` Junio C Hamano
2025-05-22 6:06 ` Jeff King
2025-05-22 6:09 ` Jeff King
2025-05-22 9:06 ` Karthik Nayak
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).