Re: [PATCH 2/2] ci: let pedantic job compile with -Og

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
> 
> > So for the pedantic warnings, we're left with a guess as to whether -Og
> > or -O2 will yield more results. And in my experience it is probably -O2.
> >
> > If we want to get coverage of -Og, I'd suggest doing it in a job that is
> > otherwise overlapping with another (maybe linux-TEST-vars, which I think
> > is otherwise a duplicate build?).
> 
> The same knee-jerk reaction came to me.
> 
> Speaking of variants, is there any interest in migrating one or some
> of the existing x86-64 CI jobs to arm64 CI jobs GitHub introduced
> recently?  I suspect that we won't find any endianness bugs (I
> expect they are configured to do little endian just like everybody
> else) and there may no longer be lurking unaligned read bugs (but
> "git log --grep=unaligned" finds surprising number of them we have
> seen and fixed), so the returns may be very small.