Add a second CI job on x86_64-linux for fsanitize=undefined (later asan?) builds of Lix #403
Labels
No labels
Area/build-packaging
Area/cli
Area/evaluator
Area/fetching
Area/flakes
Area/language
Area/profiles
Area/protocol
Area/releng
Area/remote-builds
Area/repl
Area/store
bug
crash 💥
Cross Compilation
devx
docs
Downstream Dependents
E/easy
E/hard
E/help wanted
E/reproducible
E/requires rearchitecture
imported
Needs Langver
OS/Linux
OS/macOS
performance
regression
release-blocker
RFD
stability
Status
blocked
Status
invalid
Status
postponed
Status
wontfix
testing
testing/flakey
ux
No milestone
No project
No assignees
2 participants
Notifications
Due date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: lix-project/lix#403
Loading…
Reference in a new issue
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
We can probably afford to throw more x86_64-linux compute at our builds, and it would be nice to have actual sanitized test runs. After the rather extremely intense results of UBSan'ing and, to the extent possible, ASan'ing, lix in https://gerrit.lix.systems/q/topic:%22undefined-behaviour%22, I really think we might want to CI running the test suite with instrumentation. This would also, I guess, test no-gc builds actually work so would fix #319.
Currently ASan is very horrible due to boost coroutines being busted garbage, and I don't really want to ship it because it randomly fails for nonsense seemingly un-suppressable reasons: https://gerrit.lix.systems/c/lix/+/1481
We have working UBSan support in-tree as of https://gerrit.lix.systems/c/lix/+/1483, so there is nothing really stopping this being done as a
hydraJobs
entry, besides a little bit of engineering our Nix expressions to support adding the meson option nicely.Another idea for the build packaging is to make clang UBSan builds with the minimal runtime ("suitable for production use", they say) that we could deploy for developers, potentially even in the overlay. This would however cause potentially about 10% regression in perf; we would have to rerun benchmarks. Personally I wouldn't be mad about it on my own machines, but others might think otherwise. https://clang.llvm.org/docs/UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer.html#minimal-runtime
This issue was mentioned on Gerrit on the following CLs: