[0/2] fuzz: build fuzzers by default on Linux

Message

Josh Steadmon March 5, 2024, 9:11 p.m. UTC

Increase our protection against fuzzer bit-rot by making sure we can
link the fuzz test executables on Linux. Patch 1 is a small CI config
improvement to fix compiler feature detection. Patch 2 is the Makefile /
config.mak.uname change to add the executables to `make all` on Linux.


Josh Steadmon (2):
  ci: also define CXX environment variable
  fuzz: link fuzz programs with `make all` on Linux

 .github/workflows/main.yml | 12 ++++++++++++
 Makefile                   | 14 +++++++++++---
 config.mak.uname           |  1 +
 3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)


base-commit: b387623c12f3f4a376e4d35a610fd3e55d7ea907

Comments

Junio C Hamano March 26, 2024, 9:51 p.m. UTC | #1

Josh Steadmon <[e-mail]> writes:

> Increase our protection against fuzzer bit-rot by making sure we can
> link the fuzz test executables on Linux. Patch 1 is a small CI config
> improvement to fix compiler feature detection. Patch 2 is the Makefile /
> config.mak.uname change to add the executables to `make all` on Linux.

This has seen a handful of review comments but they haven't been
responded nor resulted in a new round.  Can we wrap this up anytime
soon?

We would expect a review comment to be at least responded to either
rebut or admit the issues raised.  It may be that a reviewer's point
were missing the mark and the patches themselves were perfectly
fine.

But all other cases, even when the reviewer's comment were missing
the mark, such a confusion may have been the result of the patch
text or the proposed log message being unclear.  Of course, the
review comments may have been pointing out an actionable issue.
They would hopefully lead to an improved version of the patches
posted sometime later, so that we can conclude a topic and move
ahead.

Thanks.

Josh Steadmon April 9, 2024, 9:34 p.m. UTC | #2

On 2024.03.26 14:51, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Josh Steadmon <[e-mail]> writes:
> 
> > Increase our protection against fuzzer bit-rot by making sure we can
> > link the fuzz test executables on Linux. Patch 1 is a small CI config
> > improvement to fix compiler feature detection. Patch 2 is the Makefile /
> > config.mak.uname change to add the executables to `make all` on Linux.
> 
> This has seen a handful of review comments but they haven't been
> responded nor resulted in a new round.  Can we wrap this up anytime
> soon?
> 
> We would expect a review comment to be at least responded to either
> rebut or admit the issues raised.  It may be that a reviewer's point
> were missing the mark and the patches themselves were perfectly
> fine.
> 
> But all other cases, even when the reviewer's comment were missing
> the mark, such a confusion may have been the result of the patch
> text or the proposed log message being unclear.  Of course, the
> review comments may have been pointing out an actionable issue.
> They would hopefully lead to an improved version of the patches
> posted sometime later, so that we can conclude a topic and move
> ahead.
> 
> Thanks.

Sorry for letting this sit for so long. I'll be addressing comments and
sending a V2 soon.