On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 02:15:10PM +0300, Rayhan Faizel wrote:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 1:51 PM Martin Kletzander <mklet...@redhat.com> wrote:On Tue, Aug 27, 2024 at 12:08:27PM +0300, Rayhan Faizel wrote: > >All the existing code is indeed still compiled as C. Only the fuzzing >executables (under tests/fuzz/) are compiled in C++ and linked to >those C objects. We still do need some of the minor code modifications >(in PATCH 1) because existing C headers are sometimes interpreted a >bit differently from the fuzzer's PoV, even with C linkage. > Sorry, what I meant is whether it would be possible to keep the code as is, the keyword parameters are a bit of a problem, but writing a layer of C code to call it through from the C++ code feels weird. Of course attributes are also complicated to make work, but those changes in the C code are pretty okay I think.Sorry, I am not sure I fully understand the first statement regarding writing a layer of C code. I had only replaced the keyword parameters with alternative names in PATCH 1.
My bad, I was trying to be brief and overdone it. What I meant is a
function that would look like the following, but it would not be a very
nice solution:
int callableFromCPlusPlus(int a, int b) {
return orig(a, b);
}
and call that one from C++. Now that I think about it, it could be even
easier, and maybe more awkward, if you only changed the declarations in
the header.
But anyway, we're getting sidetracked, sorry for that.
>There are still some other code modifications in tests/ and src/ for a >few other fuzzers (mostly hotplug and CH) to make fuzzing easier. > >I agree that we could keep it as a separate repo, perhaps a >subproject. I have seen some projects keep their fuzzing code separate >(mostly on oss-fuzz). > >-- >Rayhan Faizel >-- Rayhan Faizel
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
