Josh Steadmon <stead...@google.com> writes:
> +FUZZ_OBJS += fuzz-pack-headers.o
> +
> +FUZZ_PROGRAMS += $(patsubst %.o,%,$(FUZZ_OBJS))
> +
> ...
> +### Fuzz testing
> +#
> +.PHONY: fuzz-clean fuzz-objs fuzz-compile
I take it that you anticipate the fuzz programs in the future all
be named fuzz-$(blah), whose source is fuzz-$(blah).o (even though
we may grow some common code that may be linked with them, which can
be done by tweaking the rule for the $(FUZZ_PROGRAMS) target). Am I
reading you correctly? Would fuzz-{clean,objs,compile} risk squatting
on nicer names we may want to use for $(blah) down the line?
> + ...
> +$(FUZZ_PROGRAMS): fuzz-compile
> + clang++ $(FUZZ_LDFLAGS) $(LIB_OBJS) $(BUILTIN_OBJS) $(XDIFF_OBJS) \
> + $(EXTLIBS) git.o $@.o /usr/lib/llvm-4.0/lib/libFuzzer.a -o $@
Is the expected usage pattern to know a single fuzz-* program the
builder wants to build, to run "make fuzz-pack-headers"? If not, it
also would be a good idea to have something like
fuzz-build-all:: $(FUZZ_PROGRAMS)
.PHONY: fuzz-build-all
perhaps?
Also, in the final version we unleash to general developer audience,
we'd want to support "make V=1" (and "make" that is "$(QUIET)").
