[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] Gsoc: add the two fuzzy targets

[Heng Zhang]

> 在 2021年4月20日，下午7:12，Michael Niedermayer <michael at niedermayer.cc> 写道：
> 
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 12:34:13PM +0800, Heng Zhang wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> 在 2021年4月19日，下午5:47，Michael Niedermayer <michael at niedermayer.cc> 写道：
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 05:06:10PM +0800, a397341575 at 163.com <mailto:a397341575 at 163.com> wrote:
>>>> From: toseven <Byone.heng at gmail.com>
> [...]
>>>> +    if (ret < 0)
>>>> +    {
>>>> +        fprintf(stderr, "Error occurred in av_packet_add_side_data: %s\n",
>>>> +        av_err2str(ret));
>>>> +    }
>>>> +    return ret;
>>> 
>>> the { } placing style mismatches whats used in FFmpeg (i dont mind but some people do mind)
>>> 
>>> more general, how much code coverage is gained with these 2 fuzzers compared to what already exists ?
>>> 
>>> thanks
>> 
>> Okay, I will modify my style to adopt for FFmpeg. What is more, I didn’t compare the code coverage between them. Do I have to do this?  I mainly refer to the fate test from libavcodec/tests/avpacket.c and libavfilter/tests/formats.c.
> 
> If code coverage does not improve, what would be the reason for FFmpeg to
> include the code ?

Thank your reply. 
My fuzzing targets call the new API interfaces, which are not used by the existing fuzzing target. Though I don’t do the related experiment, code coverage should improve. 

> 
> Thanks
> 
> [...]
> -- 
> Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
> 
> Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into
> despotisms. -- Aristotle
> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-devel mailing list
> ffmpeg-devel at ffmpeg.org
> https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
> 
> To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email
> ffmpeg-devel-request at ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".