This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Add fuzzing coverage support
- From: Bernd Schmidt <bschmidt at redhat dot com>
- To: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov at google dot com>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Yuri Gribov <tetra2005 at gmail dot com>, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google dot com>, Alexander Potapenko <glider at google dot com>, Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin dot a dot a at gmail dot com>, Jiri Slaby <jslaby at suse dot cz>, Quentin Casasnovas <quentin dot casasnovas at oracle dot com>, Sasha Levin <sasha dot levin at oracle dot com>, syzkaller <syzkaller at googlegroups dot com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 18:11:29 +0100
- Subject: Re: Add fuzzing coverage support
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CACT4Y+ZW4oRSD0TpEubnZjHmLsgVy_A4MQvUxZHWYgxxj_CCcA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CACT4Y+YB5N-wi7U=HiLJgpBMt5fnZ1F5k4mKUy1TY-fd_ji81Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <CACT4Y+biFo__boRhvyoVh03s-psybWzo4bqhOPbXzY7wwY-2Xw at mail dot gmail dot com> <565F20BA dot 7040108 at redhat dot com> <CACT4Y+bmp5khj3XEzDbtxyaVm6pqN1tp6tN3E7M-0w6AEY3FrA at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 12/02/2015 05:55 PM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
Can you point to some concrete coding style violations (besides
function comments)?
(flag_sanitize & (SANITIZE_ADDRESS | SANITIZE_THREAD \
- | SANITIZE_UNDEFINED | SANITIZE_NONDEFAULT)))
+ | SANITIZE_UNDEFINED | SANITIZE_NONDEFAULT) \
+ || flag_sanitize_coverage))
The || should line up with the other condition (i.e. the part starting
with flag_sanitize).
+unsigned sancov_pass (function *fun)
Split the line after the return type.
+
+template<bool O0>
+class pass_sancov : public gimple_opt_pass
+{
This seems to be a new idiom but I find it OK. One thing to consider
would be whether you really need this split between O0/optimize
versions, or whether you can find a place in the queue where to insert
it unconditionally. Have you considered this at all or did you just
follow asan/tsan?
+public:
+ static pass_data pd ()
+ {
+ static const pass_data data =
I think a static data member would be better than the unnecessary pd ()
function. This is also unlike existing practice, and I wonder how others
think about it. IMO a fairly strong case could be made that if we're
using C++, then this sort of thing ought to be part of the class definition.
Bernd