In D36331#848714, @petecoup wrote:

Any comments or suggestions about Krzysztof's copyright notice question here? Are they OK in, or should the notices be taken out?

ping x2

Ping x2

In D33878#847732, @joerg wrote:

Well, the libexecinfo one exists as fallback because gcc doesn't provide one.

In D33878#847654, @joerg wrote:

Kamil, which unwind.h are you using? The outdated copy in libexecinfo.h or the modern one used by libunwind? I see little reason to cater to the bugs in the former...

https://github.com/NetBSD/src/blob/trunk/lib/libexecinfo/unwind.h here is the refrenced header used by GCC.

In D36908#846734, @kcc wrote:

Rule of thumb: never mix refactoring with functional changes (or porting to new platforms, etc) in a single change.

In D36908#846732, @kcc wrote:

Any such change during a large refactoring is a burden, sorry.

In D36908#846722, @kcc wrote:

In D36908#846686, @krytarowski wrote:

Please amend this patch with support for NetBSD:

http://www.netbsd.org/~kamil/llvm/libfuzzer-netbsd.txt

Not everything is ready, like missing lsan... but it's good enough for start and improve in future.

Let's not overcomplicate the move to compiler-rt, it's pretty involved any way.
We would welcome support for any new platform in a separate patch once the dust settles (a week or two).
For any new supported platform will require a public build bot and a contact person.
Lacking that we can't promise to keep the port alive. (For further discussion, please start a new thread).

Please amend this patch with support for NetBSD:

I will move it here (from the mailing list):

In D36908#846351, @mgorny wrote:

A side notice but wouldn't it be better to make libFuzzer a completely separate component (like openmp)? I've seen people take interest in it outside LLVM toolchain.

ubsan and suitable on production? I don't understand this phrasing, sounds to me like oxymoron.

Adding more reviewers to get feedback.

In D35667#835271, @mcrosier wrote:

In D35667#835262, @mcrosier wrote:

In D35667#835044, @krytarowski wrote:

In D35667#835033, @krytarowski wrote:

What's your particular need for this project? If just for fan, this might not be worth to maintain.

There is ongoing effort to upstream Fortran support to LLVM.

For reference: https://github.com/flang-compiler/flang

Hi Leslie,
If you focused your efforts on trying to get flang integrated with top of trunk LLVM this would be incredibly helpful to the community. :D

In D36265#830854, @zturner wrote:

It's not just Windows, but not even all unixes support openat. Minimum required version of various Unixes are:

DragonFly 2.3.
FreeBSD 8.0.
Linux 2.6.16
NetBSD 7.0.
OpenBSD 5.0.
OS X 10.10.

I don't know how old some of these are, but you should check first to make sure we don't support any versions of these unix variants with versions older than specified above. As for Windows, If we're going to use Nt functions, I would rather they be entirely separate functions. i.e. not done via an optional parameter to an existing function, but a completely new function.

I've compressed the whole directory (for which I had more issues) and uploaded:

ping

I've reverted the commit on demand.

In D36603#839356, @vsk wrote:

I think it would be better to XFAIL the test from the onset so that people reading the source are aware of the issue. That way, if for any reason this can't make its way back on your priority list, the build will remain in good shape.

In D36603#839335, @vsk wrote:

What's causing the test failure? Do you plan on XFAIL'ing the test on NetBSD initially?

I don't really get why the shadow offset differs between systems, I copied it from FreeBSD.
Please help to optimize it.

ASAN, UBSAN and SAFESTACK are already committed.

Fix lsan entry.
Add tests.

Enable more sanitizers.

This is the last patch needed for common-sanitizer on NetBSD.

Apply changes from review.

In D36376#836057, @alekseyshl wrote:

This bot is unhappy about your change: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux/builds/3307. Please fix.

In D36483#835849, @fjricci wrote:

Are there buildbots for NetBSD?

2 patches to be reviewed left.. I'm going to commit it now, soon I will prompt for enabling asan.

In D36321#834681, @vitalybuka wrote:

Could you please add test?

In D35667#835033, @krytarowski wrote:

What's your particular need for this project? If just for fan, this might not be worth to maintain.

In D35553#834682, @vitalybuka wrote:

Please fix the comment

What's your particular need for this project? If just for fan, this might not be worth to maintain.

ping?

ping?

In D36377#833523, @davide wrote:

Kamil, a fair amount of these changes seem to just replace SANITIZER_FREEBSD with SANITIZER_FREEBSD || SANITIZER_NETBSD.
I wonder whether it makes sense to define a SANITIZER_BSD macro for both of them?

Also, what's the difference in support you expect between NetBSD and FreeBSD to support sanitizers?

I will hold on with committing this until merging all the remaining patches for COMPILER_RT_HAS_SANITIZER_COMMON.