Ben Kimock

Should fuzz targets _always_ use `-Zbuild-std`? The standard library has a lot of debug assertions and I'm sure there are Rust-level UB that the sanitizers won't understand but which could...

I agree that the compile time overhead is concerning, but `cargo-fuzz` already enables ASan by default, which has a dramatic effect on the compile time of large codebases. Building an...

When I say "no sanitizers" I mean `--sanitizer=none`. Even with that, `cargo fuzz` still passes a number of `sanitizer-coverage-*` flags. Looks like coverage doesn't work, because of https://github.com/rust-lang/wg-cargo-std-aware/issues/63 _sigh_

> This is not an argument to add even more compile time overhead My apologies for the confusion. I agree. I meant to point out that I think the cost...

:facepalm: `cargo-fuzz` already supports passing through `-Zbuild-std` to Cargo, all you have to do is run `cargo fuzz run fuzz-target -Zbuild-std`. So it's already possible but somehow I managed to...

`cargo fuzz coverage` and `--build-std` are incompatible at the moment: https://github.com/rust-lang/wg-cargo-std-aware/issues/63. I added a check that should bail out correctly if a user attempts to use a build configuration that...

I am commenting here because the motivating PR with a bunch of debug assertions in `core` was just merged. I agree very strongly with @Shnatsel's point, and I think that...

> why not compile the fuzz target with the incompatible sanitizers separately, and run all of them? That sounds awesome and out of scope for this PR :sweat_smile: Turning on...

I changed this PR back to default to turning on `-Zbuild-std`. I think this is the best default because it detects more bugs, which is the whole point of fuzzing....

I'm still seeing this issue on `2021-12-13`, but only with `--sanitizer=none`. If I leave off the sanitizer flags and use asan everything works.