Re: [PATCH] CI: add SANITIZE=[address|undefined] jobs

["Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Jul 27 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@github.com> writes:
>
>>>            - jobname: linux-leaks
>>>              cc: gcc
>>>              pool: ubuntu-latest
>>> +          - jobname: SANITIZE=address
>>> +            cc: gcc
>>> +            pool: ubuntu-latest
>>> +          - jobname: SANITIZE=undefined
>>> +            cc: gcc
>>> +            pool: ubuntu-latest
>>
>>> @@ -277,6 +277,12 @@ linux-leaks)
>>>  	export SANITIZE=leak
>>>  	export GIT_TEST_PASSING_SANITIZE_LEAK=true
>>>  	;;
>>> +SANITIZE=address)
>>> +	export SANITIZE=address
>>> +	;;
>>> +SANITIZE=undefined)
>>> +	export SANITIZE=undefined
>>> +	;;
>>
>> In both of these cases, we are breaking from the nearby pattern. These
>> jobs could be renamed to linux-address and linux-undefined to match the
>> linux-leaks job.
>>
>> Alternatively, we could rename linux-leaks to SANITIZE=leak, since the
>> point is not to test the Linux platform but to use the additional runtime
>> checks (and Linux is the fasted CI platform).
>
> I tend to agree that in the existing linux-leaks job, the
> "linux"-ness is much less important than the "leaks"-ness, so the
> "alternative" might be slightly more preferable, but I do not mind
> the renaming goes the other way, either.

I'm fine with it either way, but to add a prep patch to this series to
do s/linux-leaks/SANITIZE=leak/g would cause a semantic conflict with my
in-flight
https://lore.kernel.org/git/cover-v3-00.15-00000000000-20220727T230800Z-avarab@gmail.com/;
It refers to "linux-leaks" in newly added documentation.

So what would you prefer here, to take a lightly altered re-roll of this
(I think Jeff's suggestion of bundling "undefined" into one job makes
sense), or have it build on top of that otherwise unrelated series, or
just do the s/linux-leaks/.../g as an eventual follow-up?