Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] fuzz: Add basic fuzz testing target.

From: Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com>
Date: Oct 13, 2018, 00:59 UTC
Message-ID: <20181013005918.GD12177@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqva6amtt7.fsf@gitster-ct.c.googlers.com>

On 2018.10.10 11:14, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 17 quoted lines

> Josh Steadmon <steadmon@google.com> writes:
> 
> > +FUZZ_OBJS += fuzz-pack-headers.o
> > +
> > +FUZZ_PROGRAMS += $(patsubst %.o,%,$(FUZZ_OBJS))
> > +
> > ...
> > +### Fuzz testing
> > +#
> > +.PHONY: fuzz-clean fuzz-objs fuzz-compile
> 
> I take it that you anticipate the fuzz programs in the future all
> be named fuzz-$(blah), whose source is fuzz-$(blah).o (even though
> we may grow some common code that may be linked with them, which can
> be done by tweaking the rule for the $(FUZZ_PROGRAMS) target).  Am I
> reading you correctly?  Would fuzz-{clean,objs,compile} risk squatting
> on nicer names we may want to use for $(blah) down the line?

Yes, that's correct. I've reworked the rules to be more compatible with how OSS-Fuzz expects to build these targets, and now "fuzz-all" is the only remaining special target.

Show 16 quoted lines

> > + ...
> > +$(FUZZ_PROGRAMS): fuzz-compile
> > +	clang++ $(FUZZ_LDFLAGS) $(LIB_OBJS) $(BUILTIN_OBJS) $(XDIFF_OBJS) \
> > +		$(EXTLIBS) git.o $@.o /usr/lib/llvm-4.0/lib/libFuzzer.a -o $@
> 
> Is the expected usage pattern to know a single fuzz-* program the
> builder wants to build, to run "make fuzz-pack-headers"?  If not, it
> also would be a good idea to have something like
> 
>     fuzz-build-all:: $(FUZZ_PROGRAMS)
>     .PHONY: fuzz-build-all
> 
> perhaps?
> 
> Also, in the final version we unleash to general developer audience,
> we'd want to support "make V=1" (and "make" that is "$(QUIET)").

Done and done.