Re: v2 of valgrind based memory tests

Subject: Re: v2 of valgrind based memory tests

Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2012 09:16:49 -0400

To: Austin Clements, notmuch@notmuchmail.org

Cc:

From: David Bremner

Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU> writes:

> On Mon, 24 Dec 2012, david@tethera.net wrote:
>
> LGTM.  In the long run, I wonder if we want to separate the time and
> memory tests like this or if some tests would make sense in either mode.

pushed. At the moment, the split into time versus memory tests is a
simple way to separate out "heavy weight" tests, but this could be done
more explicitely.

d

• Previous message (by thread): Re: v2 of valgrind based memory tests

Thread:

• david@tethera.net—v2 of valgrind based memory tests [inbox, unread]
  • david@tethera.net—[Patch v2 1/4] perf-test: remove redundant "initial notmuch new" [inbox, notmuch::patch, notmuch::pushed, unread]
  • david@tethera.net—[Patch v2 2/4] perf-test: rename current tests as "time tests" [inbox, notmuch::patch, notmuch::pushed, unread]
  • david@tethera.net—[Patch v2 3/4] perf-test: initial version of memory test infrastructure. [inbox, notmuch::patch, notmuch::pushed, unread]
  • david@tethera.net—[Patch v2 4/4] perf-test: add memory leak test for dump restore [inbox, notmuch::patch, notmuch::pushed, unread]
  • Austin Clements—Re: v2 of valgrind based memory tests [inbox, notmuch::review, unread]
    • David Bremner—Re: v2 of valgrind based memory tests [inbox, unread]