Snapshot gcc-7-20170713 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/7-20170713/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 7 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-7
On 07/13/17 16:31, Georg-Johann Lay wrote:
> On 12.07.2017 15:40, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> On 07/11/17 22:28, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>> On 07/11/17 21:42, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Andrew Pinski
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Andrew Pinski
>>
On 12.07.2017 15:40, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
On 07/11/17 22:28, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
On 07/11/17 21:42, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Andrew Pinski
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Andrew Pinski
wrote:
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Bernd Edlinger
wrote:
Hi, this is a bit different proposal. Instead of using some
magic value to indicate that the hook returns nothing useful,
the hook has not a 4th argument of bool* to ship that information.
The goal and usage is the same as with the first proposal:
* Allow the back-end to compute correct costs a
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Wish Wu wrote:
> Hi
>
> In fact, under linux with "return address" and file "/proc/self/maps",
> we can give unique id for every comparison.
Yes, it's doable. But you expressed worries about performance hit of
merging callbacks for different sizes. Mapping pc + i
Hi
In fact, under linux with "return address" and file "/proc/self/maps",
we can give unique id for every comparison.
For fuzzing, we may give 3 bits for every comparison as marker of if
"<", "==" or ">" is showed. :D
With Regards
Wish Wu of Ant-financial Light-Year Security Lab
On Thu, Jul 13,
Hi
In my perspective:
1. Do we need to assign unique id for every comparison ?
Yes, I suggest to implement it like -fsanitize-coverage=trace-pc-guard .
Because some fuzzing targets may invoke dlopen() like functions to
load libraries(modules) after fork(), while these libraries are
compil
Wow, your patch fixed the spurious fails for me on Ubuntu 16.04 with Linux 4.4.
Just to make sure, I ran the ubsan tests with: make -k -j4 check-gcc
RUNTESTFLAGS=“ubsan.exp”
Thanks
Dominik
> On 12 Jul 2017, at 15:40, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>
> On 07/11/17 22:28, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> On 07/
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Wish Wu wrote:
> Hi
>
> I wrote a test for "-fsanitize-coverage=trace-cmp" .
>
> Is there anybody tells me if these codes could be merged into gcc ?
Nice!
We are currently working on Linux kernel fuzzing that use the
comparison tracing. We use clang at the momen
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 4:56 AM, Klaus Kruse Pedersen (Klaus)
wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-07-12 at 08:57 -0600, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>> On 07/12/2017 05:07 AM, Klaus Kruse Pedersen (Klaus) wrote:
>> > I have seen reproducible builds being discussed here, but what is
>> > the
>> > position on inter c-
10 matches
Mail list logo
