Josh Bleecher Snyder

That’s what I was thinking, yes. I definitely still have an “ugh” reaction to it, but it should be reliable and simple for go-fuzz users.

No need to gate progress here on #279, although I suspect that in practice you might choose to. Up to you. Thanks for looking into this.

> Long term it would be good to get rid of the archive as it makes integration with other systems harder. Agreed. I don't quite know how to do this....

I am AFK for a while, it if you want to dig into this, it’d be useful to know whether this is a recent regression. Note that any time you...

For data races, this seems thoroughly in the domain of the race detector. And when the race detector is enabled, it causes extra randomization in the scheduler to try to...

I’ve added -race to go-fuzz-build. There’s no clear path for building more in go-fuzz, so I’m going to close this. @egonelbre, I know you know your way around the Go...

Seems like a corner case go/ast or go/printer bug. Our could have to do with exactly how we insert the coverage statement. Needs investigation. This doesn't affect go tool cover,...

Dmitry's original proposal is here: https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/1zXR-TFL3BfnceEAWytV8bnzB2Tfp6EPFinWVJ5V4QC8/pub Relevant passage: > The support is added to the testing package. > User fuzz functions are added to _test.go files and start with Fuzz...

I've been thinking about your proposal: ```go func FuzzRegexp(f *testing.F, re string, data []byte, posix bool) { // use re, data, posix } ``` vs what I had in mind:...

> For Interesting maybe we want to pass an integer priority (how much it is interesting). But for most cases it will indeed be binary. Or maybe we want to...