CI: add sanitizers

[davidbolvansky]

Enable undefined behaviour sanitizer and address sanitizer.

[apinski-cavium]

Note GCC has a similar (same) sanitizers that can be run there too.
I found GCC's address sanitizer finding more use out of scope issues than clang's does find.

Also I noticed you had to disable the leak detection. I could find you can only disable it at runtime via the ASAN_OPTIONS=detect_leaks=0 env variable settings.

[davidbolvansky]

And clang somehow crashes in CI.
So yes, I will switch to gcc build.

[davidbolvansky]

Ready for review.

[fruffy]

Do you want this as a nightly test by any chance? Or should we merge the sanitizer test with the normal test runner?

[davidbolvansky]

As the normal one.

[fruffy]

Then let's merge build-linux and build-linux-sanitizers. build-linux-sanitizers seems like a superset to the other test to me and the additional sanitizer checks do not increase the compile time noticeably.

[davidbolvansky]

Okay. In sanitizers build gcc fires additional “maybe-uninitialized” warnings but there are quite noisy and so often not real issues basically. So these noisy warnings + -Werror by default would be problematic so..

A) disable them completely via -Wno-maybe-uninitialized
B) just never show them as errors when -Werror is used. Flag: -Wno-error=maybe-uninitialized

WDYT?

[fruffy]

Are we actually looking at the “maybe-uninitialized” warnings? If not, I would go with the second option.

Otherwise, we can keep the duplicate CI run. I am guessing we have to run the tests to trigger some sanitizer assertions, right?

[davidbolvansky]

Are we actually looking at the “maybe-uninitialized” warnings? If not, I would go with the second option.

I look on them and they are highly unlikely to happen (be a real bug) in practice. What is worse, sometimes innocent code change triggers for example gcc's inliner and then gcc emits (from midend passes!) warnings randomly..

Second option sounds fine to me, so I will update this patch.

And yes to the last question.

[fruffy]

Just a nit, maybe also rename the top-level test to include this name. Then the label immediately shows in the action panel.

[davidbolvansky]

Feel free to merge it if you are fine with the current version of this PR, @fruffy

[davidbolvansky]

Thanks for the review and feedback, @fruffy