On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 04:34:07 GMT, David Holmes <dhol...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>>> I think it requires much broader discussion as to whether OpenJDK is >>> actively seen to endorse these tools. Why these tools? What if there are >>> other tools, should we support them all? >>> >>> I'm not saying use of these tools may not be useful, but actually >>> incorporating them into OpenJDK is a decision that needs to be made at a >>> higher-level IMO. >> >> The sanitizers are integrated directly with GCC and Clang/LLVM and are used >> by projects such as the Linux kernel. They are also used by companies such >> as Facebook and Google, which IIRC maintain some of the largest closed >> source mono repositories on the planet. As the sanitizers are integrated >> directly with GCC and Clang/LLVM, they are extremely easy to use (no >> external dependencies), fast, and have no direct alternatives. An >> alternative would also need to be integrated with the compilers in order to >> be at par. >> >> Additionally configuration options for using ASan already exist in OpenJDK, >> so that ship has kinda sailed. >> >> If we feel strongly about a discussion, we should probably discuss all the >> sanitizers as a whole. However that discussion can be done in parallel, as >> ASan is already used. Just adding the options to OpenJDK does not mean it is >> endorsed. > > @jcking this is not ready for integration. You have one review from build > team. You have no reviews from core-libs for launcher change. You haven't > even bothered to address the comments I made on the actual changes. @dholmes-ora Also etiquette-wise, is it preferred that the commenter resolve the conversation or the author, and the commenter re-open if they feel it is not resolved? I am used to latter workflow, but OpenJDK might have different expectations and I'd like to follow them. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/11604
