[llvm-dev] LibFuzzer syntax sugar flag

[Anna Zaks via llvm-dev]

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> 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
> 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/20170428/f66aeb40/attachment-0001.html>