Re: Proposal to move Valgrind annotations from "valgrind" to "misc" --enable-checking option

[Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>]

On Thu, 27 Jan 2011, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:
> Thus I propose to separate the two. To avoid introducing another
> --enable-checking option, let's move the annotations to the "misc"
> checking and also enable "misc" too if "valgrind" is requested. Both
> these options are disabled for releases, so no performance loss there.
>
> There are two drawbacks I can think of. First, if one wants Valgrind
> annotations but does not have the required headers, then the compiler
> will be built without them - silently (currently
> --enable-checking=valgrind fails if headers are not found). Second,
> the compiler binary will be built slightly different if "misc" is
> enabled depending on the presence or absence of those headers. I
> believe these are minor enough.
>
> I have a prototype patch which I've been using on gc-improv (not
> committed there yet).
>
> What do you think?

Sounds good to me (the original author of the
--enable-checking=valgrind FWIW).  I have no problems with your
suggested changes, except I insist --enable-checking=valgrind
still behave the same: actually running valgrind on all gcc
invocations, adding annotations and failing if it doesn't find
the headers. ;)

If people want your "misc" changes but failing without headers,
add "--enable-valgrind-annotations".

Unfortunately, last I checked, the valgrind of Fedora 12 (or was
it 10?) was compiled with too low limits to cope with
bootstrapping and compiling the most troublesome insn-*.c file.

brgds, H-P