[PATCH] D85928: [libFuzzer] Added -print_full_coverage flag.

[Max Moroz via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

Dor1s added a comment.

@morehouse could you please take a look as well, when you get a chance?



================
Comment at: compiler-rt/lib/fuzzer/FuzzerDriver.cpp:802
 
+  if (Flags.print_full_coverage) {
+    if (!RunIndividualFiles) {
----------------
since we print the coverage information from within `PrintFinalStats`, it seems like we can just go through the if body starting on the line 817? This literally is a copy of it without some additional printing / parameters check.


================
Comment at: compiler-rt/lib/fuzzer/FuzzerDriver.cpp:297
 
+int RunOneTestCov(Fuzzer *F, const char *InputFilePath, size_t MaxLen) {
+  Unit U = FileToVector(InputFilePath);
----------------
Dor1s wrote:
> we should be able to re-use the existing `RunOneTest` function. You can explicitly set `detect_leaks` option to zero when `print_full_coverage` is used
Why can't you use the existing `RunOneTest` as suggested in my previous comment here?


================
Comment at: compiler-rt/lib/fuzzer/FuzzerTracePC.cpp:272
 
-void TracePC::PrintCoverage() {
+void TracePC::PrintCoverage(const bool full) {
   if (!EF->__sanitizer_symbolize_pc ||
----------------
let's rename `full` to something like `PrintAllCounters`


================
Comment at: compiler-rt/lib/fuzzer/FuzzerTracePC.cpp:321
+    } else {
+      // -print_coverage=1
+      Printf("%sCOVERED_FUNC: hits: %zd", Counter ? "" : "UN", Counter);
----------------
this comment is incorrect, just delete it


================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Target/AMDGPU/AMDGPURegisterBankInfo.cpp:842
 
       // See if we already processed this register in another instruction in the
       // sequence.
----------------
this and some other files look unrelated, can you exclude them from your commit please?


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D85928/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D85928