morehouse added a comment. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D38642#890963, @kcc wrote:
> It's not about coverage instrumentation (not) being present, but about > libFuzzer's main() being present, right? Yes. > Will we be able to reuse some of Justin's code instead of creating one more > main() function? This reuses the code that Justin moved to FuzzMutate/FuzzerCLI. That's why the main is so short. But perhaps we could move the main itself into FuzzerCLI? > Or, why not link with libFuzzer (-fsanitize=fuzzer at link time) even if we > don't us einstrumentation at compile time? When I tried this, I got undefined references to all kinds of `__sanitizer_cov_*` symbols. https://reviews.llvm.org/D38642 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
