Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 2/3] tests: Run the iotests during "make check" again

[Thomas Huth]

On 8/23/19 9:12 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 8/23/19 12:34 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 17/08/19 10:54, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>> People often forget to run the iotests before submitting patches or pull
>>> requests - this is likely due to the fact that we do not run the tests
>>> during our mandatory "make check" tests yet. Now that we've got a proper
>>> "auto" group of iotests that should be fine to run in every environment,
>>> we can enable the iotests during "make check" again by running the "auto"
>>> tests by default from the check-block.sh script.
>>>
>>> Some cases still need to be checked first, though: iotests need bash and
>>> GNU sed (otherwise they fail), and if gprof is enabled, it spoils the
>>> output of some test cases causing them to fail. So if we detect that one
>>> of the required programs is missing or that gprof is enabled, we still
>>> have to skip the iotests to avoid failures.
>>>
>>> And finally, since we are using check-block.sh now again, this patch also
>>> removes the qemu-iotests-quick.sh script since we do not need that anymore
>>> (and having two shell wrapper scripts around the block tests seems rather
>>> confusing than helpful).
>>>
>>> Message-Id: <address@hidden>
>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <address@hidden>
>>> [AJB: -makecheck to check-block.sh, move check-block to start and gate it]
>>> Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <address@hidden>
>>
>> This breaks when sanitizers are enabled.  There are leaks reported,
>> though I'm not sure if they are real, and in additions the warning lines
>> break qemu-iotests' output comparison.
> 
> D'oh, I already thought that it was too easy ;-) I'll have a look at it...

If I get that right, the problem only exists when compiling with Clang
and sanitizers enabled - Clang outputs lots of warnings that some things
are not implemented yet and then prints out these leak reports which are
likely false positives...

I've sent a patch now to disable the iotests during "make check" when
sanitizers are enabled. But I wonder whether we should maybe also check
for these incomplete sanitizer implementations in the configure script
to avoid to enable them in this case? (e.g. there are also lots of
warnings during "make check-qtest" in this case, which is somewhat ugly)

 Thomas