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

[Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev]

> 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 <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>> wrote:
> 
>> On Sep 21, 2016, at 1:25 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com <mailto:kcc at google.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sep 21, 2016, at 12:56 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com <mailto:kcc at google.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto: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 <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Exciting! 
>>>> 
>>>> (btw, I'd prefer libfuzzer at googlegroups.com <mailto: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/ <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.


> 
> (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.

— 
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/f36c30ba/attachment.html>