On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 06:09:42AM -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
On 02/25/2015 12:20 AM, Martin Kletzander wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 09:04:00AM -0700, Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 02/24/2015 09:00 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>>> Needed to silence a valgrind detection of uninitialized memory:
>>>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174147
>>>
>>> * .gnulib: Update to latest.
>>> * bootstrap: Resync to gnulib.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <eblake(a)redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> I've missed RC1, so I'll wait for a review on this one (are we sure
>>> that RC2 will be enough time to ensure the gnulib update doesn't
>>> cause regressions, basically).
>>
>
> Is it worth risking that due to one valgrind warning? I don't
> remember more than maybe one time that gnulib caused a problem, but
> who knows.
And the valgrind warning is harmless - it's complaining about passing
uninitialized memory to a syscall, but that memory lives in the padding
of a struct, and none of the code is actually acting on that memory
(either on our side, or in the syscall). If we want to just live with
the warning until after the release, that would also be okay - we have
up until the RC2 date to make the decision.
Personally, the valgrind warning seems harmless enough to me that I'd
rather wait until the gnulib update introduces a more important bugfix,
only to reduce the chance of bisecting across gnulib updates. :)
Jan