<br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 3/28/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Chris AtLee</b> <<a href="mailto:chris@atlee.ca">chris@atlee.ca</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On 3/28/06, Neal Norwitz <<a href="mailto:nnorwitz@gmail.com">nnorwitz@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>> We've made a lot of improvement with testing over the years.<br>> Recently, we've gotten even more serious with the buildbot, Coverity,
<br>> and coverage (<a href="http://coverage.livinglogic.de">http://coverage.livinglogic.de</a>). However, in order to<br>> improve quality even further, we need to do a little more work. This<br>> is especially important with the upcoming
2.5. Python 2.5 is the most<br>> fundamental set of changes to Python since 2.2. If we're to make this<br>> release work, we need to be very careful about it.<br><br>This reminds me of something I've been wanting to ask for a while:
<br>does anybody run python through valgrind on a regular basis? I've<br>noticed that valgrind complains a lot about invalid reads in<br>PyObject_Free. I know that valgrind can warn about things that turn<br>out not to be problems, but would generating a suppresion file and
<br>running all or part of the test suite through valgrind on the<br>buildbots be useful?</blockquote><div><br>See Misc/README.valgrind and Misc/valgrind-python.supp. I ran Python with valgrind two weeks ago, and didn't encounter any new problems.
<br><br></div></div>-- <br>Thomas Wouters <<a href="mailto:thomas@python.org">thomas@python.org</a>><br><br>Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!