Allow to pass compiler flags via CFLAGS

[hernanponcedeleon]

No description provided.

[ThomasHaas]

Isn't CFLAGS strictly associated with C compilers not general compilers? If so, I think using CFLAGS in all compilation pipelines is dangerous. What if the user has their CFLAGS set-up in the environment specifically for their C compiler (maybe -Wall is always set via a shell config) and then invokes Dartagnan on SPIRV code? The SPIRV compiler will probably fail due to the unrecognized options passed via CFLAGS, no?

Can't we just allow any $OPTION in the .yml as a standalone argument and let the user decide what he wants to call that option by modifying the .yml? We can of course put $CFLAGS by default for .c code but leave it out for other pipelines (unless they also have a commonly used name for the compiler flags option).

[github-actions]

Performance comparison

Linux x64

Benchmark details

Memory model: vmm

Benchmark	Base branch	PR branch	Improvement (99% CI)	Result
benchmarks/locks/cna.c	15.396 ± 0.990 s	15.614 ± 0.496 s	➖ -1.6% [-28.9%, +25.7%]	UNKNOWN
benchmarks/locks/mutex_musl.c	34.838 ± 1.613 s	34.668 ± 0.602 s	➖ +0.4% [-17.9%, +18.7%]	UNKNOWN
benchmarks/lfds/dglm.c	22.786 ± 1.985 s	21.967 ± 1.193 s	➖ +3.1% [-58.1%, +64.3%]	UNKNOWN
benchmarks/lfds/ms.c	35.509 ± 4.741 s	35.750 ± 4.659 s	➖ -2.7% [-147.0%, +141.6%]	UNKNOWN
benchmarks/lfds/treiber.c	12.032 ± 0.350 s	11.298 ± 0.435 s	➖ +6.1% [-9.5%, +21.7%]	UNKNOWN
benchmarks/lfds/safe_stack.c	8.152 ± 0.102 s	8.331 ± 0.508 s	➖ -2.2% [-41.9%, +37.4%]	UNKNOWN
benchmarks/challenging/cna.c	40.563 ± 5.746 s	37.783 ± 2.436 s	➖ +5.1% [-100.9%, +111.1%]	UNKNOWN

Memory model: aarch64

Benchmark	Base branch	PR branch	Improvement (99% CI)	Result
benchmarks/locks/linuxrwlock.c	7.498 ± 0.144 s	7.534 ± 0.147 s	➖ -0.5% [-17.5%, +16.4%]	UNKNOWN
benchmarks/locks/mutex_musl.c	5.972 ± 0.456 s	6.463 ± 0.023 s	➖ -8.6% [-53.8%, +36.6%]	UNKNOWN
benchmarks/challenging/cna.c	14.189 ± 1.101 s	15.744 ± 1.837 s	➖ -11.3% [-90.6%, +68.0%]	UNKNOWN
benchmarks/challenging/wsq.c	6.739 ± 0.075 s	6.642 ± 0.220 s	➖ +1.4% [-17.7%, +20.5%]	UNKNOWN

Memory model: power

Benchmark	Base branch	PR branch	Improvement (99% CI)	Result
benchmarks/locks/linuxrwlock.c	22.281 ± 0.558 s	22.416 ± 0.697 s	➖ -0.7% [-30.0%, +28.7%]	UNKNOWN
benchmarks/locks/mutex_musl.c	20.576 ± 1.034 s	21.220 ± 1.074 s	❌ -3.1% [-5.2%, -1.1%]	UNKNOWN
benchmarks/lfds/dglm.c	5.626 ± 0.126 s	5.855 ± 0.184 s	➖ -4.1% [-27.6%, +19.4%]	UNKNOWN
benchmarks/lfds/ms.c	22.458 ± 0.522 s	24.302 ± 1.200 s	➖ -8.2% [-34.9%, +18.5%]	UNKNOWN
benchmarks/lfds/treiber.c	18.239 ± 0.891 s	18.653 ± 1.655 s	➖ -2.3% [-49.0%, +44.4%]	UNKNOWN

Total

Benchmarks	Base branch	PR branch	Improvement (99% CI)
All reported benchmarks	292.854 ± 2.439 s	294.239 ± 3.052 s	➖ -0.5% [-2.8%, +1.8%]

2 benchmark(s) omitted because both averages were below 5 seconds.

macOS ARM64

Benchmark details

Memory model: vmm

Benchmark	Base branch	PR branch	Improvement (99% CI)	Result
benchmarks/locks/cna.c	22.239 ± 0.390 s	24.920 ± 0.949 s	➖ -12.1% [-47.6%, +23.3%]	UNKNOWN
benchmarks/locks/mutex_musl.c	25.272 ± 1.182 s	26.247 ± 0.740 s	➖ -3.9% [-16.0%, +8.1%]	UNKNOWN
benchmarks/lfds/dglm.c	57.313 ± 4.740 s	50.063 ± 6.189 s	➖ +12.6% [-35.7%, +61.0%]	UNKNOWN
benchmarks/lfds/ms.c	61.924 ± 7.863 s	56.615 ± 6.413 s	➖ +7.3% [-98.2%, +112.8%]	UNKNOWN
benchmarks/lfds/treiber.c	14.415 ± 1.092 s	16.156 ± 2.696 s	➖ -12.5% [-130.4%, +105.5%]	UNKNOWN
benchmarks/lfds/safe_stack.c	12.258 ± 1.400 s	12.923 ± 0.941 s	➖ -5.9% [-52.1%, +40.2%]	UNKNOWN
benchmarks/challenging/cna.c	43.409 ± 1.487 s	48.907 ± 0.852 s	➖ -12.8% [-37.5%, +12.0%]	UNKNOWN

Memory model: aarch64

Benchmark	Base branch	PR branch	Improvement (99% CI)	Result
benchmarks/locks/linuxrwlock.c	19.487 ± 1.117 s	17.752 ± 2.027 s	➖ +8.4% [-77.2%, +93.9%]	UNKNOWN
benchmarks/locks/mutex_musl.c	14.620 ± 2.843 s	15.365 ± 2.997 s	➖ -5.2% [-43.2%, +32.7%]	UNKNOWN
benchmarks/lfds/dglm.c	14.811 ± 2.923 s	11.823 ± 1.031 s	➖ +18.7% [-47.6%, +85.0%]	PASS
benchmarks/lfds/ms.c	11.750 ± 1.460 s	14.809 ± 0.415 s	➖ -27.0% [-98.4%, +44.3%]	UNKNOWN
benchmarks/challenging/cna.c	33.282 ± 1.270 s	34.796 ± 1.907 s	➖ -4.7% [-47.8%, +38.5%]	UNKNOWN
benchmarks/challenging/wsq.c	16.411 ± 0.862 s	16.343 ± 1.038 s	➖ +0.3% [-35.3%, +36.0%]	UNKNOWN

Memory model: power

Benchmark	Base branch	PR branch	Improvement (99% CI)	Result
benchmarks/locks/linuxrwlock.c	58.211 ± 9.467 s	59.244 ± 6.773 s	➖ -2.3% [-29.2%, +24.6%]	UNKNOWN
benchmarks/locks/mutex_musl.c	35.516 ± 3.404 s	31.920 ± 2.735 s	➖ +9.2% [-77.4%, +95.8%]	UNKNOWN
benchmarks/lfds/dglm.c	9.654 ± 0.932 s	10.041 ± 0.271 s	➖ -4.7% [-67.5%, +58.1%]	UNKNOWN
benchmarks/lfds/ms.c	54.889 ± 3.342 s	51.226 ± 2.168 s	➖ +6.6% [-10.7%, +23.9%]	UNKNOWN
benchmarks/lfds/treiber.c	26.489 ± 2.025 s	24.202 ± 1.333 s	➖ +8.2% [-49.6%, +66.0%]	UNKNOWN

Total

Benchmarks	Base branch	PR branch	Improvement (99% CI)
All reported benchmarks	531.950 ± 19.340 s	523.351 ± 8.680 s	➖ +1.6% [-16.1%, +19.2%]