Hi,

I'm trying to find a codegen bug in aarch64, so I've been looking at the 
wasm_compile_fuzzer in the hope that it can help me. I have a number of 
questions about the current behaviour of the fuzz target. (sorry in advance 
for the list!)

1) What set of commands is best to use? I've noticed on the default setting 
a single, constant, instruction is generated and I'm not sure how useful 
that is. I've currently using -len_control=10 to get to the, hopefully, 
juicy stuff quickly.

2) Viewing the generated modules is difficult. I'm using `DumpModule` to 
output any valid module and there seems to be two error types that prevent 
my available tools from working. A common output from the WABT tools is: 
`error: unexpected type form (got -0x30)`. wasm-objdump tries harder but 
then often falls over with `error: expected valid local type`. I'm using 
the latest version of WABT, does anyone know what type(s) the fuzz target 
generates that could cause this issue?

3) For the modules that I have successfully viewed, I've often noticed long 
chains of the same operation, i32.eqz being a very popular one. Is there 
any explanation for this? In general, I still haven't got my head around 
how the input from libfuzzer is used to generate the module...

4) Is there any memory attached to the instance when it runs? And if there 
is, there doesn't seem to be an attempt to ensure addresses are in range. 
So, do most of the memory operations just crash the program? The 
differential testing seems to only test that the return of `main` is equal, 
but what about the contents of memory?

Thanks!
Sam

-- 
-- 
v8-dev mailing list
v8-dev@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"v8-dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to v8-dev+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/v8-dev/2ad6b36e-9a5b-4dba-9d76-abb2e95d9f58n%40googlegroups.com.

Reply via email to