search for: r270942

Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "r270942".

2016 May 28
2
[LibFuzzer] Recent performance regression due to r270942
Hi, This started as an off hand comment in [1] but this appears to be a real issue so I'm moving the discussion to the mailing list. In r270942 the time taken to run LibFuzzer's test became noticeably longer. I am building on * Arch Linux (4.5.4-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Wed May 11 22:21:28 CEST 2016 x86_64 GNU/Linux) * I am building libFuzzer and running its tests like so ``` CC=<new_clang> CXX=<new_clang++> cmake -DLLVM_USE...
2016 May 28
0
[LibFuzzer] Recent performance regression due to r270942
...ecause it sees everything it wants to see. --kcc On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Dan Liew <dan at su-root.co.uk> wrote: > Hi, > > This started as an off hand comment in [1] but this appears to be a > real issue so I'm moving the discussion to the mailing list. > > In r270942 the time taken to run LibFuzzer's test became noticeably > longer. I am building on > > * Arch Linux (4.5.4-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Wed May 11 22:21:28 CEST > 2016 x86_64 GNU/Linux) > * I am building libFuzzer and running its tests like so > > ``` > CC=<new_clang> CX...
2016 May 28
2
[LibFuzzer] Recent performance regression due to r270942
...; > --kcc > > On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 6:18 PM, Dan Liew <dan at su-root.co.uk> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> This started as an off hand comment in [1] but this appears to be a >> real issue so I'm moving the discussion to the mailing list. >> >> In r270942 the time taken to run LibFuzzer's test became noticeably >> longer. I am building on >> >> * Arch Linux (4.5.4-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Wed May 11 22:21:28 CEST >> 2016 x86_64 GNU/Linux) >> * I am building libFuzzer and running its tests like so >> >> ```...
2016 May 28
0
[LibFuzzer] Recent performance regression due to r270942
On 27 May 2016 at 21:26, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > Done. r271095 Thanks that fixed the issue for me. But now ``fuzzer.test`` is failing for me. Specifically ``` not LLVMFuzzer-NullDerefTest -close_fd_mask=3 2>&1 | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=NullDerefTest ``` However it looks like this is to be expected because this test is relying on the symbol