search for: cxa_demangler_fuzzer

...vision&revision=291030 My llvm fuzzing bot was pretty naive and simple. If we want proper continuous fuzzing for parts of LLVM we either need to build a separate "real" continuous fuzzing process, or use an existing one. Luckily, there is one :) As a pilot I've recently added the cxa_demangler_fuzzer to OSS-Fuzz <https://github.com/google/oss-fuzz>: https://github.com/google/oss-fuzz/tree/master/projects/llvm_libcxxabi It even found one bug which Mehdi already fixed! http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=revision&revision=293330 The bug report itself will become public in ~4 days:...

...ing bot was pretty naive and simple. > > If we want proper continuous fuzzing for parts of LLVM we either need to > > build a separate "real" continuous fuzzing process, > > or use an existing one. Luckily, there is one :) > > As a pilot I've recently added the cxa_demangler_fuzzer to OSS-Fuzz: > > https://github.com/google/oss-fuzz/tree/master/projects/llvm_libcxxabi > > It even found one bug which Mehdi already fixed! > > http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=revision&revision=293330 > > The bug report itself will become public in ~4 days: &gt...

Hi all, The blog entry [1] suggest that one of the buildbots constantly fuzzes clang and clang-format. However, the actual bot [2] only tests the fuzzer itself over a well-known set of bugs in standard software (eg. Heartbleed [3] seems to be among them). Has there actually ever been a buildbot that fuzzes clang/LLVM itself? Another (obvious?) fuzzing candidate would be the LLVM's bitcode