[llvm-dev] moving libfuzzer to compiler-rt?

[George Karpenkov via llvm-dev]

+Chris.

My understanding was that it is technically impossible for things in “lib”, as they are built first, and there’s no way to tell them to do that before “clang”.
I’m not a CMake expert, and I might be wrong.

> On May 9, 2017, at 2:15 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 1:56 PM, George Karpenkov <ekarpenkov at apple.com <mailto:ekarpenkov at apple.com>> wrote:
> Again, after offline conversation with Chris Bieneman:
> 
>  - move to compiler-rt would be too complicated due to change in licenses
>  - it would make much more sense to move to “tools” folder instead, for the following reasons:
>     * conceptually, it’s a tool, not a library
>     * all other projects in “lib” depend on LLVM and can not build without LLVM, libFuzzer does not
>     * practically speaking, CMake has no way of knowing whether Clang is being built when
>       “lib” is compiled, yet it does know for projects in tools.
> 
> Using a freshly built clang for projects in “tools” is embarrassingly easy and only requires a couple of lines
> of configuration change.
> 
> Kostya, what about moving to “tools” then?
> 
> Well, ok, this sounds cool. 
> But can we make one more step and try to preserve the code where it is, for the sake of compatibility? 
> E.g. can we have the CMake in tools while still keeping the code in lib? 
> Or a link of some kind?
> 
> My worry is that there are already quite a few places that know where libFuzzer code is, 
> and I don't control all of them. 
> 
> And, finally, I really don't get why we can do something in tools and can't do the same in lib. 
> Or we simply don't want to do it to keep things simple? 
> 
> --kcc 
> 
>  
> 
>> On May 9, 2017, at 11:07 AM, Dan Liew <dan at su-root.co.uk <mailto:dan at su-root.co.uk>> wrote:
>> 
>> On 9 May 2017 at 18:55, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com <mailto:kcc at google.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 10:23 AM, Dan Liew <dan at su-root.co.uk <mailto:dan at su-root.co.uk>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Does anyone see good reasons why libFuzzer should remain in llvm repo
>>>>> (as
>>>>> opposed to moving it to compiler-rt)?
>>>> 
>>>> Does moving LibFuzzer to compiler-rt imply that it is compiled as part
>>>> of compiler-rt and shipped with it?
>>>> 
>>>> How does that fit with LibFuzzer's model of allowing the user to
>>>> provide their own `main()`.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> libFuzzer doesn't allow users to use their own main (not any more).
>>> Although I am not sure how that's related to moving libFuzzer somewhere.
>> 
>> Oops. That shows how long it's been since I looked at the source code.
>> 
>> It was related in that if LibFuzzer was shipped as part of compiler-rt
>> I presumed we would need to supply both libraries to end users.
>> Given that this feature was removed it is a non-issue.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170509/9d6315c2/attachment-0001.html>