[llvm-dev] -sanitizer-coverage-prune-blocks=true and LibFuzzer

[Kostya Serebryany via llvm-dev]

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote:

>
> On Sep 21, 2016, at 1:43 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sep 21, 2016, at 1:25 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 21, 2016, at 12:56 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 21, 2016, at 9:36 AM, Kostya Serebryany via llvm-dev <
>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Exciting!
>>>>
>>>> (btw, I'd prefer libfuzzer at googlegroups.com for such discussions,
>>>> please start new topics there)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You mean a LLVM library has a separate mailing-list? Why?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because the topic is very separate.
>>>
>>>
>>> Can you clarify?
>>>
>>> I thought is was about the development/debug/evolution/usability of
>>> http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/lib/Fuzzer/
>>>
>>
>> Yes, and this topic is substantially different from most other topics
>> discussed on llvm-dev.
>>
>>
>> How so? If discussion on the development of a LLVM sub-library does not
>> belong to llvm-dev, I wonder if the library belong to LLVM in the first
>> place (add to this that libFuzzer does not use anything else in LLVM…).
>>
>
> There are users of libFuzzer that don't know much about LLVM and don't
> need/want to.
> They may want to subscribe to a mailing list that talks precisely about
> the topic they want.
>
>
> Right, so basically libFuzzer should not be in the LLVM repo.
>


For libFuzzer *development* having it in LLVM tree makes lots of sense
because
 * libFuzzer is closely tied to the sanitizer coverage currently available
only in LLVM
 * The LLVM testing infrastructure (lit+FileCheck) is very convenient.
But If there is a consensus that libFuzzer does not belong to the LLVM tree
I can delete it from here, no problem.


>
>
>
> (I will clearly happy to answer any user on this, or any other maliing
> list, if I see such message.
>
>
>> We also have separate maliing lists for asan/tsan/msan
>>
>> Is it for more anything else than historical reasons?
>>
>
> Not only. there are asan/tsan users that don't use nor depend on LLVM.
>  (not true for msan though)
>
> Please stop discussing this topic here -- we already hijacked the thread
> from Jonas.
>
>
> Well, no, you killed this thread by saying that it should be continued on
> a different mailing list.
>

No, please re-read what I've said.


>
> —
> Mehdi
>
>
> If you have further concerns, please start a new thread.
>
> --kcc
>
>
>
>>
>> —
>> Mehdi
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160921/839edcd6/attachment.html>