fix(tracing): JIT blacklisting on PHP 8.5+ by morrisonlevi · Pull Request #4226 · DataDog/dd-trace-php

morrisonlevi · 2026-09-23T20:58:02Z

Description

PHP 8.5 has opcache directly included, no separate opcache.so. This requires modifications to the blacklisting code.

I need particular review for the Windows paths, which are entirely AI written.

This is stacked on top of another PR to help with CI reliability, it needs to merge first.

Reviewer checklist

Test coverage seems ok.
Appropriate labels assigned.

datadog-prod-us1-4 · 2026-09-23T21:04:01Z

✨ Unblock PR with BitsAI

❌ Errors

Your PR has failed checks. Please review the issues below and take necessary action before merging.

🚦 11 Pipeline jobs failed

DataDog/apm-reliability/dd-trace-php | test_web_drupal_101: [8.2, apache2handler] — ❌ 2 tests failed · 🔧 Needs a code fix, caused by this PR

View more details · View in GitLab

❌ testScenarioGetToMissingRoute from tests/Integrations/Drupal/V10_1.DDTrace\Tests\Integrations\Drupal\V10_1\CommonScenariosTest

DDTrace\Tests\Integrations\Drupal\V10_1\CommonScenariosTest::testScenarioGetToMissingRoute
Unexpected test failure during snapshot test: At request &lt;Request GET /test/session/snapshot &gt;:
   At snapshot (token=&#39;tests.integrations.drupal.v10_1.common_scenarios_test.test_scenario_get_to_missing_route&#39;):
    - Directory: tests/snapshots
    - CI mode: 1
    - Trace File: tests/snapshots/tests.integrations.drupal.v10_1.common_scenarios_test.test_scenario_get_to_missing_route.json
    - Stats File: tests/snapshots/tests.integrations.drupal.v10_1.common_scenarios_test.test_scenario_get_to_missing_route_tracestats.json
    At compare of 1 expected trace(s) to 1 received trace(s):
     At trace &#39;drupal.request&#39; (31 spans):
Received fewer spans (22) than expected (31). Expected unmatched spans: &#39;drupal.theme.render&#39;, &#39;drupal.theme.render&#39;, &#39;drupal.theme.render&#39;, &#39;drupal.theme.render&#39;, &#39;drupal.theme.render&#39;, &#39;drupal.theme.render&#39;, &#39;drupal.theme.render&#39;, &#39;drupal.theme.render&#39;, &#39;drupal.theme.render&#39;
...

❌ testScenarioGetWithView from tests/Integrations/Drupal/V10_1.DDTrace\Tests\Integrations\Drupal\V10_1\CommonScenariosTest

DDTrace\Tests\Integrations\Drupal\V10_1\CommonScenariosTest::testScenarioGetWithView
Unexpected test failure during snapshot test: At request &lt;Request GET /test/session/snapshot &gt;:
   At snapshot (token=&#39;tests.integrations.drupal.v10_1.common_scenarios_test.test_scenario_get_with_view&#39;):
    - Directory: tests/snapshots
    - CI mode: 1
    - Trace File: tests/snapshots/tests.integrations.drupal.v10_1.common_scenarios_test.test_scenario_get_with_view.json
    - Stats File: tests/snapshots/tests.integrations.drupal.v10_1.common_scenarios_test.test_scenario_get_with_view_tracestats.json
    At compare of 1 expected trace(s) to 1 received trace(s):
     At trace &#39;drupal.request&#39; (27 spans):
Received fewer spans (18) than expected (27). Expected unmatched spans: &#39;drupal.theme.render&#39;, &#39;drupal.theme.render&#39;, &#39;drupal.theme.render&#39;, &#39;drupal.theme.render&#39;, &#39;drupal.theme.render&#39;, &#39;drupal.theme.render&#39;, &#39;drupal.theme.render&#39;, &#39;drupal.theme.render&#39;, &#39;drupal.theme.render&#39;
...

DataDog/apm-reliability/dd-trace-php | test_extension_ci: [8.2] — 🔧 Needs a code fix, caused by this PR

View more details · View in GitLab

DataDog/apm-reliability/dd-trace-php | test_extension_ci: [8.5] — 🔧 Needs a code fix, caused by this PR

View more details · View in GitLab

View all 11 failed jobs.

ℹ️ Info

No other issues found (see more)

❄️ No new flaky tests detected

🎯 Code Coverage (details)
• Patch Coverage: 100.00%
• Overall Coverage: 68.26% (+0.00%)

Useful? React with 👍 / 👎

_{This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.

🔗 Commit SHA: c2c6a39 | Docs | View more details | Give us feedback!}

PHP 8.5 has opcache directly included, no separate opcache.so. This requires modifications to the blacklisting code.

pr-commenter · 2026-09-23T21:36:56Z

Benchmarks [ profiler ]

Benchmark execution time: 2026-09-23 21:36:45

Comparing candidate commit c5eccf2 in PR branch levi/jit-blacklist-85 with baseline commit 499202d in branch glopes/ci-misc-no-libdatadog.

Found 0 performance improvements and 0 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 29 metrics, 7 unstable metrics.

Explanation

This is an A/B test comparing a candidate commit's performance against that of a baseline commit. Performance changes are noted in the tables below as:

🟩 = significantly better candidate vs. baseline
🟥 = significantly worse candidate vs. baseline

We compute a confidence interval (CI) over the relative difference of means between metrics from the candidate and baseline commits, considering the baseline as the reference.

If the CI is entirely outside the configured SIGNIFICANT_IMPACT_THRESHOLD (or the deprecated UNCONFIDENCE_THRESHOLD), the change is considered significant.

Feel free to reach out to #apm-benchmarking-platform on Slack if you have any questions.

More details about the CI and significant changes

You can imagine this CI as a range of values that is likely to contain the true difference of means between the candidate and baseline commits.

CIs of the difference of means are often centered around 0%, because often changes are not that big:

---------------------------------(------|---^--------)-------------------------------->
                              -0.6%    0%  0.3%     +1.2%
                                 |          |        |
         lower bound of the CI --'          |        |
sample mean (center of the CI) -------------'        |
         upper bound of the CI ----------------------'

As described above, a change is considered significant if the CI is entirely outside the configured SIGNIFICANT_IMPACT_THRESHOLD (or the deprecated UNCONFIDENCE_THRESHOLD).

For instance, for an execution time metric, this confidence interval indicates a significantly worse performance:

----------------------------------------|---------|---(---------^---------)---------->
                                       0%        1%  1.3%      2.2%      3.1%
                                                  |   |         |         |
       significant impact threshold --------------'   |         |         |
                      lower bound of CI --------------'         |         |
       sample mean (center of the CI) --------------------------'         |
                      upper bound of CI ----------------------------------'

pr-commenter · 2026-09-23T22:27:49Z

Benchmarks [ tracer ]

Benchmark execution time: 2026-09-25 19:07:24

Comparing candidate commit c2c6a39 in PR branch levi/jit-blacklist-85 with baseline commit 15d395b in branch master.

📊 Benchmarking dashboard

Found 1 performance improvements and 3 performance regressions! Performance is the same for 189 metrics, 1 unstable metrics.

Explanation

This is an A/B test comparing a candidate commit's performance against that of a baseline commit. Performance changes are noted in the tables below as:

🟩 = significantly better candidate vs. baseline
🟥 = significantly worse candidate vs. baseline

We compute a confidence interval (CI) over the relative difference of means between metrics from the candidate and baseline commits, considering the baseline as the reference.

If the CI is entirely outside the configured SIGNIFICANT_IMPACT_THRESHOLD (or the deprecated UNCONFIDENCE_THRESHOLD), the change is considered significant.

Feel free to reach out to #apm-benchmarking-platform on Slack if you have any questions.

More details about the CI and significant changes

You can imagine this CI as a range of values that is likely to contain the true difference of means between the candidate and baseline commits.

CIs of the difference of means are often centered around 0%, because often changes are not that big:

---------------------------------(------|---^--------)-------------------------------->
                              -0.6%    0%  0.3%     +1.2%
                                 |          |        |
         lower bound of the CI --'          |        |
sample mean (center of the CI) -------------'        |
         upper bound of the CI ----------------------'

As described above, a change is considered significant if the CI is entirely outside the configured SIGNIFICANT_IMPACT_THRESHOLD (or the deprecated UNCONFIDENCE_THRESHOLD).

For instance, for an execution time metric, this confidence interval indicates a significantly worse performance:

----------------------------------------|---------|---(---------^---------)---------->
                                       0%        1%  1.3%      2.2%      3.1%
                                                  |   |         |         |
       significant impact threshold --------------'   |         |         |
                      lower bound of CI --------------'         |         |
       sample mean (center of the CI) --------------------------'         |
                      upper bound of CI ----------------------------------'

scenario:MessagePackSerializationBench/benchMessagePackSerialization-opcache

🟩 execution_time [-4.748µs; -3.472µs] or [-4.099%; -2.998%]

scenario:SamplingRuleMatchingBench/benchRegexMatching1

🟥 execution_time [+54.700ns; +139.700ns] or [+3.725%; +9.514%]

scenario:SamplingRuleMatchingBench/benchRegexMatching2

🟥 execution_time [+42.886ns; +133.514ns] or [+2.915%; +9.076%]

scenario:SamplingRuleMatchingBench/benchRegexMatching4

🟥 execution_time [+59.174ns; +154.626ns] or [+4.018%; +10.499%]

Unstable benchmarks

These benchmarks have a confidence interval too wide to call a change; treat them as noise rather than signal.

scenario:SpanBench/benchOpenTelemetryAPI

unstable mem_peak [-2665.352KB; +2670.008KB] or [-5.397%; +5.407%]

bwoebi

I suppose you're right, that doesn't work simpler.

chatgpt-codex-connector · 2026-09-25T17:57:50Z

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-09-25T18:01:10.109222Z	`f45a494`	Draft marked ready
🔒 Security Review	✅ Completed 2026-09-25T18:02:39.999575Z	`f45a494`	Draft marked ready

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

Open a pull request for review
Mark a draft as ready
Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

fix(tracing): JIT blacklisting on PHP 8.5+

c5eccf2

PHP 8.5 has opcache directly included, no separate opcache.so. This requires modifications to the blacklisting code.

morrisonlevi force-pushed the levi/jit-blacklist-85 branch from e6fb587 to c5eccf2 Compare September 23, 2026 21:09

bwoebi reviewed Sep 23, 2026

View reviewed changes

Comment thread zend_abstract_interface/jit_utils/jit_blacklist.c

Base automatically changed from glopes/ci-misc-no-libdatadog to master September 24, 2026 12:04

An error occurred while trying to automatically change base from glopes/ci-misc-no-libdatadog to master September 24, 2026 12:04

Merge branch 'master' into levi/jit-blacklist-85

f45a494

bwoebi approved these changes Sep 25, 2026

View reviewed changes

morrisonlevi marked this pull request as ready for review September 25, 2026 17:57

morrisonlevi requested review from a team as code owners September 25, 2026 17:57

Merge branch 'master' into levi/jit-blacklist-85

c2c6a39

morrisonlevi merged commit da9f9f7 into master Sep 25, 2026
2185 of 2197 checks passed

morrisonlevi deleted the levi/jit-blacklist-85 branch September 25, 2026 20:14

github-actions Bot added this to the 1.26.0 milestone Sep 25, 2026

Navigation Menu

fix(tracing): JIT blacklisting on PHP 8.5+ - #4226

fix(tracing): JIT blacklisting on PHP 8.5+#4226
morrisonlevi merged 3 commits into
masterfrom
levi/jit-blacklist-85

morrisonlevi commented Sep 23, 2026

Uh oh!

datadog-prod-us1-4 Bot commented Sep 23, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

pr-commenter Bot commented Sep 23, 2026

Explanation

More details about the CI and significant changes

Uh oh!

pr-commenter Bot commented Sep 23, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Explanation

More details about the CI and significant changes

Unstable benchmarks

scenario:SpanBench/benchOpenTelemetryAPI

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

bwoebi left a comment

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Sep 25, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

Conversation

morrisonlevi commented Sep 23, 2026

Description

Reviewer checklist

Uh oh!

datadog-prod-us1-4 Bot commented Sep 23, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

❌ Errors

ℹ️ Info

Uh oh!

pr-commenter Bot commented Sep 23, 2026

Benchmarks [ profiler ]

Explanation

More details about the CI and significant changes

Uh oh!

pr-commenter Bot commented Sep 23, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Benchmarks [ tracer ]

Explanation

More details about the CI and significant changes

scenario:MessagePackSerializationBench/benchMessagePackSerialization-opcache

scenario:SamplingRuleMatchingBench/benchRegexMatching1

scenario:SamplingRuleMatchingBench/benchRegexMatching2

scenario:SamplingRuleMatchingBench/benchRegexMatching4

Unstable benchmarks

scenario:SpanBench/benchOpenTelemetryAPI

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

bwoebi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Sep 25, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codex Review Summary

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

datadog-prod-us1-4 Bot commented Sep 23, 2026 •

edited

Loading

pr-commenter Bot commented Sep 23, 2026 •

edited

Loading

chatgpt-codex-connector Bot commented Sep 25, 2026 •

edited

Loading