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

[Kostya Serebryany via llvm-dev]

On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> wrote:

> Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes:
> > On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Kostya Serebryany via llvm-dev <
> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 12:26 PM, George Karpenkov <ekarpenkov at apple.com
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> From my understanding, all these problems can be solved entirely
> >>>
> >> by moving libfuzzer to compiler-rt, where (other) sanitizers already
> >>> reside.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yes, that might be a reasonable thing to do.
> >> I am trying to remember the reasons why we've put libFuzzer into llvm
> and
> >> not into compiler-rt in the first place, and failing to do so.
> >>
> >
> > IIRC you thought libFuzzer would be more tightly coupled to LLVM
> > instrumentation, so the goal was to reap monorepo-like productivity
> > developments without waiting for it to happen?
> >
> > Maybe it was a licensing concern, UIUC vs dual UIUC/MIT?
> >
> >
> >> Any thoughts on the suggestion?
> >>>
> >>> It would be still possible to compile just libfuzzer with no
> >>> dependencies, by simply making a partial checkout from SVN,
> >>> and only the repo path would change.
> >>>
> >>
> >> This would cause some annoyance for me and maybe some users, but nothing
> >> we can't tolerate.
> >> Still what are our other options?
> >>
> >> * wait for the mono repo to happen, then we'll be able to make libFuzzer
> >> depend on clang. (Or no?)
> >> * move libFuzzer to a separate repo, parallel to compiler-rt? (not a
> large
> >> win, just listing as a choice)
> >> * anything else?
> >>
> >> Does anyone see good reasons why libFuzzer should remain in llvm repo
> (as
> >> opposed to moving it to compiler-rt)?
> >>
> >
> > I'd like to move libFuzzer out of llvm/lib/, since it's definitely a
> > runtime library, and not compiler library infrastructure. compiler-rt
> seems
> > like the best place to put it for now, unless there are licensing
> concerns.
>
> Maybe we should just move it under llvm/runtimes and set it up with a
> fairly simple cmake config?


can we?
If we can, then we probably can also leave the code where it is, and tweak
the cmake to use just-built-clang. No?


> I think this makes it pretty trivial to
> build it with the just-built clang. It doesn't have terribly much to do
> with compiler-rt IMO - this isn't something that enables a compiler
> feature per se, it's more of its own thing.
>
> > Mechanically, we can do this in one history-preserving commit by checking
> > out the entire SVN repo the way that the git-llvm script does. SVN users
> > and users of https://github.com/llvm-project/llvm-project will still see
> > the right history. The final monorepo will presumably also have accurate
> > history.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170503/19740198/attachment.html>