On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 04:15:15PM +0700, Arnaud Rebillout wrote: > Hello, > > On Sat, 08 Apr 2023 13:47:19 +0200 =?utf-8?q?Jonathan_Neusch=C3=A4fer?= > <j.neuschae...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > Package: afl++ > > Version: 4.04c-3 > > Severity: wishlist > > > > Hello, > > > > the AFL++ documentation recommends using afl-clang-lto(++) if possible[1]. > > > > Based on local tests, "PREFIX=/usr make" will produce an afl-clang-lto > > binary, if lld-14 is also installed (which should be the case, according > > to debian/rules). Not sure what's missing from the Debian package in > > order to get afl-clang-lto. > > > > Best regards, > > jn > > > > > > [1]: > > https://github.com/AFLplusplus/AFLplusplus/blob/stable/docs/fuzzing_in_depth.md#1-instrumenting-the-target > > > at this point it seems that afl-clang-lto(++) are parts of the package: > > $ apt show afl++ | grep ^Version: > Version: 4.09c-1+b1 > > $ apt-file show afl++ | grep bin/afl-clang-lto > afl++: /usr/bin/afl-clang-lto > afl++: /usr/bin/afl-clang-lto++ > > Can we close this bug report then? Or did I misunderstand the bug report?
Sounds good. Thanks for looking into this, -jn
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
