LibFuzzer syntax sugar flag

Hi All,

Recently we have introduced a short syntactic sugar flag for compiling a file with libfuzzer:
one just needs to add “-fsanitize=fuzzer” to the command line, and the driver would specify
coverage flags and link with libfuzzer automatically.
I wanted to ask whether it would make more sense to rename the flag to “-ffuzzer”,
as it’s not a sanitizer, and it has a much heavier effect.

Thanks,
George

on the one hand, -fsanitize=fuzzer might indeed be confusing as it behaves in somewhat different way compared to other sanitizers

Major difference: links in a library with main()
On the other hand, I like “-fsanitize=fuzzer,address” more than “-fsanitize=address -ffuzzer”

–kcc

I think libfuzzer deserves its own flag. I view fuzzing as a smarter testing technology while sanitizers are associated with inserting additional checks into the program. The different linking behavior is another major difference.

Anna.

The offline consensus was in favor of -fsanitize=fuzzer in order to group it together with other runtime verification tools.

SGTM. LibFuzzer requires SanitizerCoverage to work so (at least from
my perspective) it makes sense that is associated with the Sanitizers.