Yes in the case of LLVM/fuzzer, it defines main entry point (thus if your tests you need to define a function entry point to receive the data) hence it is better if haproxy was a library. Now since haproxy always has been "monolithic" I was not sure it would appeal :-)
On 19 February 2018 at 07:26, Willy Tarreau <w...@1wt.eu> wrote: > Hi David, > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 03:38:15PM +0000, David CARLIER wrote: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: David CARLIER <devne...@gmail.com> > > Date: 12 February 2018 at 15:37 > > Subject: Plans for 1.9 > > To: w...@1wt.eu > > > > > > Was thinking as a contrib work, making haproxy more fuzzer "compliant" > > (AFL and LLVM/fuzzer for example) which would mean turning haproxy into a > > shared with a separated exe but not sure it would be ever accepted :-). > > To be honnest, I have absolutely no idea how it works, so I guess you'll > have to give a bit more details here. Making a shared lib out of haproxy > probably isn't a big deal. Sometimes it's just a matter of renaming main() > and linking with -shared. I don't know if that would be compatible with > what you need however. > > Willy >
