Here a Work in Progress diff, here I simply build both static and shared
libraries, maybe Haproxy folks would prefer only one of those but wanted to
give the choice.
the main entry point from haproxy.c then becomes hap_main one which is the
default but in a fuzzer's perspective, it might be preferr
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
Hi David,
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 03:38:15PM +, David CARLIER wrote:
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: David CARLIER
> 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"
> (A
-- Forwarded message --
From: David CARLIER
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 separa
4 matches
Mail list logo
