User Details
- User Since
- Aug 20 2018, 11:45 AM (231 w, 6 d)
Apr 28 2022
Hi @vvereschaka, thank you for the quick approval! I'm not entirely sure why the tests are so flaky especially since I was able to pass all LIT tests under Windows and Linux locally. I've re-ran the pre-merge build 5 times and it appears that the three configurations pass if you combine runs 1 and 3. Is this enough to safely merge or should I continue rebuilding until all configurations passes?
Apr 21 2022
Sep 2 2020
Improved test compatibility for Windows.
Sep 1 2020
Address @morehouse comments:
- Ignore chmod exit code for improved compatibility when running the test fuzzer-dirs.test on Windows
- Check for dummy_dir creation
Aug 31 2020
Unchecked some mistakenly checked Dones.
Addressed @morehouse comments:
- const int to bool for argument in ValidateDirectoryExists
- Simplified MkDirRecursiveInner
- Spelling
Aug 27 2020
Aug 25 2020
Address @morehouse comment.
Aug 24 2020
Ping.
Aug 17 2020
Fixed the diff
Aug 10 2020
Aug 4 2020
Ping.
Jul 28 2020
Applied clang-format to some areas of the code but left others alone to be consistent with the rest of the libFuzzer code base. Please let me know if it's appropriate to apply all suggested clang-tidy and clang-format changes.
Jun 22 2020
Thanks for the review & approval @vitalybuka! Before I request someone to commit this patch, can you please take a look at my response to your concern regarding the changes made to __sanitizer_symbolize_code?
Jun 4 2020
May 19 2020
Ping.
May 12 2020
@vitalybuka thanks for the approval! Can someone with commit access please push these changes?
Added spaces around "&&".
May 5 2020
May 4 2020
Ran git-clang-format HEAD to resolve CI errors.
May 1 2020
Require little-endian byte order when executing tests which read in byte order sensitive .sancov files. This should prevent LIT test failure on big-endian systems such as s390x which is what caused this commit to be reverted as per https://reviews.llvm.org/rL374636.
Mar 16 2020
@MaskRay sure.
Name: Douglas Gliner
E-mail:
@MaskRay, is my updated description okay? If so, can someone with commit access please push this change?
Mar 9 2020
@MaskRay thanks for the approval. I just want to make sure you saw my earlier question since I haven't yet updated the description or added a comment:
Changed sys::Process::FileDescriptorIsDisplayed(FD) to raw_fd_ostream::is_displayed().
Mar 6 2020
@MaskRay thanks for the feedback. Before I update the summary and code with a comment, I'd like to first confirm that from our discussion about this function, are Windows, Minix, and fully POSIX compliant OS the only hosts supported by LLVM so far?
Mar 5 2020
At the least, the target OS should be mentioned.
Ping.
Mar 4 2020
So I've finally taken the time to figure out why these tests fail on s390x using QEMU. When .sancov files are loaded into memory and the header is checked in isCoverageFile, the check fails presumably due to endianess. For example, the sancov header magic for test-linux_x86_64.0.sancov is expected to be 0xC0BFFFFF but is read as 0xFFFFBFC0 on big endian systems. I assume the same issue is causing the tests to fail when ran on ppc64be. I am not at all familiar with how other parts of LLVM handle endian differences when reading files from memory using MemoryBuffer::getFile or equivalent. I'd guess there'd be a portable method since llvm-objdump -d /test/tools/sancov/Inputs/test-linux_x86_64 returns the identical output when ran on both s390x and x86_64, but perhaps there are other factors in play that I'm overlooking. What are the expectations regarding cross platform compatibility with sancov? Is it reasonable to expect sancov to be able to parse and provide coverage information for any .sancov and binary compiled for a target supported by LLVM on any platform? Or should users be expected to use .sancov files on the same host that generated them?
Feb 27 2020
Oct 15 2019
@vitalybuka I plan to debug this failure as soon as I can. I imagine I'd have to use QEmu to emulate ppc64/s390x since I don't have such a machine on hand. Thanks for committing my other diff though!
Oct 10 2019
Hi @kcc,
Oct 9 2019
@vitalybuka thanks for the explanation. I believe I did it correctly, please let me know otherwise. It is my first time submitting a change to the LLVM project!
Split out JSON changes to D68752.
Oct 8 2019
@vsk thanks for the review! It looks like the JSON support library implements what JSONWriter does in this tool. To reduce maintenance, I've updated sancov to use the JSON support library implementation instead. The only downside to this change is that the JSON text format differs compared to the original implementation. I'm open to reverting this diff and simply adding your suggested change which also worked. Let me know what you think.
Ping.
Sep 30 2019
Ping.
Sep 23 2019
Ping.
Sep 16 2019
Ping.
Sep 9 2019
Ping.
Sep 3 2019
Ping.
Aug 26 2019
Ping.
Aug 19 2019
Ping.
Aug 16 2019
Aug 12 2019
Ping.
Aug 5 2019
Rebase over mono-repo.