[simdjson] initial integration #2999
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This adds simdjson, a C++ json library optimized for speed.
Upstream is positive.
My intent is to smoke out oss-fuzz integration bugs first, then once everything seems to work, flip over to point to the real repo (just as I did for fmt).
Why add yet another json library to oss-fuzz, considering you already have nlohmman json and rapidjson? I think simdjson stands out for it's remarkable performance, which distinguishes it from the competition. It has 7.6k stars on github so it seems to be in widespread use.
During development, I had to disable one of the fuzzers for being detected as a bad build (I got
BAD BUILD: /out/fuzz_minify seems to have only partial coverage instrumentation.), do you perhaps have an idea of what could be the reason? Daniel, the upstream author, suggested it may be due to use of a big table (I assume it is this one).