[llvm-dev] LibFuzzer syntax sugar flag

[George Karpenkov via llvm-dev]

The offline consensus was in favor of -fsanitize=fuzzer in order to group it together with other runtime verification tools.
> On Apr 28, 2017, at 11:56 AM, Anna Zaks <ganna at apple.com> wrote:
> 
> I think libfuzzer deserves its own flag. I view fuzzing as a smarter testing technology while sanitizers are associated with inserting additional checks into the program. The different linking behavior is another major difference.
> 
> Anna.
> 
>> On Apr 27, 2017, at 4:08 PM, Kostya Serebryany via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>> 
>> on the one hand, -fsanitize=fuzzer might indeed be confusing as it behaves in somewhat different way compared to other sanitizers 
>> Major difference: links in a library with main()
>> On the other hand, I like "-fsanitize=fuzzer,address" more than "-fsanitize=address -ffuzzer"
>> 
>> --kcc 
>> 
>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 5:02 PM, George Karpenkov <ekarpenkov at apple.com <mailto:ekarpenkov at apple.com>> wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> 
>> Recently we have introduced a short syntactic sugar flag for compiling a file with libfuzzer:
>> one just needs to add “-fsanitize=fuzzer” to the command line, and the driver would specify
>> coverage flags and link with libfuzzer automatically.
>> I wanted to ask whether it would make more sense to rename the flag to “-ffuzzer”,
>> as it’s not a sanitizer, and it has a much heavier effect.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> George
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170508/cd573bd8/attachment.html>