Kostya Serebryany

Could be a trivial bug... Can you try this? ``` Index: FuzzerMutate.cpp =================================================================== --- FuzzerMutate.cpp (revision 358040) +++ FuzzerMutate.cpp (working copy) @@ -542,6 +542,7 @@ if (Mask[I]) T[OneBits++] = Data[I];...

Nice, thanks! I didn't even try to optimize the disk size yet, wanted to see if the logic works at all. I think the easiest way to optimize the disk...

Just added `-focus_function=auto` which will make libFuzzer choose the focus function automatically based on the coverage data contained in the trace files. So far tested only on a tiny test....

I've reimplemented the python scripts in libFuzzer proper (LLVM r360712). The current work flow: ```shell #!/bin/bash LLVM=$HOME/llvm RT=$LLVM/projects/compiler-rt # Build the regular fuzzer binary. clang -g -O1 -fsanitize=fuzzer $RT/test/fuzzer/OnlySomeBytesTest.cpp -o...

New workflow: 1. build the two binaries as above 2. run the libFuzzer binary with -fork=N and -collect_data_flow= ```shell ./fuzzer-lf -use_value_profile=1 -collect_data_flow=./fuzzer-dft -fork=20 ``` (again, not tested yet outside of...