Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev
2016-Sep-21 20:37 UTC
[llvm-dev] -sanitizer-coverage-prune-blocks=true and LibFuzzer
> On Sep 21, 2016, at 1:25 PM, Kostya Serebryany <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…).> We also have separate maliing lists for asan/tsan/msanIs it for more anything else than historical reasons? — Mehdi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160921/bdc723b9/attachment.html>
Kostya Serebryany via llvm-dev
2016-Sep-21 20:43 UTC
[llvm-dev] -sanitizer-coverage-prune-blocks=true and LibFuzzer
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote:> > On Sep 21, 2016, at 1:25 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> > wrote: > >> >> On Sep 21, 2016, at 12:56 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Mehdi Amini <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> wrote: >>> >>> Exciting! >>> >>> (btw, I'd prefer 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/ >> > > 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. (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. 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/20160921/83b8f496/attachment-0001.html>
Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev
2016-Sep-21 20:56 UTC
[llvm-dev] -sanitizer-coverage-prune-blocks=true and LibFuzzer
> 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>