>>> On 05.10.17 at 17:04, wrote:
> On 10/04/2017 09:26 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 25.09.17 at 16:26, wrote:
>>> --- a/tools/fuzz/x86_instruction_emulator/fuzz-emul.c
>>> +++ b/tools/fuzz/x86_instruction_emulator/fuzz-emul.c
>>> @@ -53,6 +53,15 @@ struct fuzz_state
>>> };
>>> #define DATA_O
On 10/04/2017 09:26 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 25.09.17 at 16:26, wrote:
>> @@ -22,13 +25,17 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>> setbuf(stdin, NULL);
>> setbuf(stdout, NULL);
>>
>> +opt_compact = true;
>
> How about giving the variable an initializer instead?
Actually, if w
>>> On 25.09.17 at 16:26, wrote:
> @@ -22,13 +25,17 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
> setbuf(stdin, NULL);
> setbuf(stdout, NULL);
>
> +opt_compact = true;
How about giving the variable an initializer instead?
> --- a/tools/fuzz/x86_instruction_emulator/fuzz-emul.c
> +++ b/too
At the moment, AFL reckons that for any given input, 87% of it is
completely irrelevant: that is, it can change it as much as it wants
but have no impact on the result of the test; and yet it can't remove
it.
This is largely because we interpret the blob handed to us as a large
struct, including C
