On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 at 20:57, Pierrick Bouvier <pierrick.bouv...@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 2/25/25 05:41, Peter Maydell wrote: > > (Looking more closely at the cold_reset_values handling > > in npcm_gcr.c, that looks not quite right in a different > > way; I'll send a reply to that patch email about that.) > > > > It may be a hole in our CI right now. > Would that be interesting for CI to run all tests (check-functional + > check w/o functional) with both ubsan and asan?
We do have at least some ubsan tests in our CI right now (eg the "clang-system" job). The problem with ubsan coverage is the usual one that we already have too much CI going on, and it takes forever and we don't have that much headroom for adding more jobs. On the asan front, also, yes, coverage would be a good idea. Here I think we will probably have to gradually ratchet up the coverage because I'm pretty sure that at the moment we will find we don't get a clean pass (mostly for "uninteresting" memory leaks). (I do also usually run a local ubsan test build when doing my acculumation of patches in target-arm, but since that's a manual step it is fallible :-)) -- PMM
