On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 04:15:15PM +0700, Arnaud Rebillout wrote:

Hello,

On Sat, 08 Apr 2023 13:47:19 +0200 =?utf-8?q?Jonathan_Neusch=C3=A4fer?= <j.neuschaefer@gmx.net> wrote:

Package: afl++
Version: 4.04c-3
Severity: wishlist

Hello,

the AFL++ documentation recommends using afl-clang-lto(++) if possible[1].

Based on local tests, "PREFIX=/usr make" will produce an afl-clang-lto binary, if lld-14 is also installed (which should be the case, according
to debian/rules). Not sure what's missing from the Debian package in
order to get afl-clang-lto.

Best regards,
jn

[1]: https://github.com/AFLplusplus/AFLplusplus/blob/stable/docs/fuzzing_in_depth.md#1-instrumenting-the-target

at this point it seems that afl-clang-lto(++) are parts of the package:

    $ apt show afl++ | grep ^Version:
    Version: 4.09c-1+b1

    $ apt-file show afl++ | grep bin/afl-clang-lto
    afl++: /usr/bin/afl-clang-lto
    afl++: /usr/bin/afl-clang-lto++

Can we close this bug report then? Or did I misunderstand the bug report?

Sounds good.

Thanks for looking into this,
-jn

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEvHAHGBBjQPVy+qvDCDBEmo7zX9sFAmYeTCcACgkQCDBEmo7z X9vsyQ/9E+lCp/YSt81lvAlBX21hcz0oLB+H4bjcVvLjpGVSB8cOmHxjVxgvwLY1 qSYk3YOhkiZ/4VPYHUrt9sCyf/WLMHFoqfdUOh1OwakJ7vKMEyeLQq7L7lQlR9bz rwP2gDB/TskAq3qnJ9b52NaVb4VoMi8fNKilQdIAgX1U15Cl34dnEisyz6O5Wqz+ swbViXOhmIpaQjMLES4S1ASHWSj9vJQ8X7D8we+NKHdwvwEAUnTnx1p1f6Qyl159 4nYmWjf1T8tTaTntEpwoWvsYZSrDfOiE5WYrZyWcxYkt7EG+2NaU1kXpTIj4ZeW0 9pDJzYLFOC/2gVblA47/Pwl9vF+FkBPNfbSAD2Bq7TtZhVRvZe6VMMm1zTMygduK +kLFONz8tqt2HGKOUgifjQ3uAr9xGeyo3ORluz6O16tci0tNXXJbZZkQZpdHxFTB Kn2ElK3Tm2gtg39hployW2BvGA3KzEp/2OK9WbxM1rcfxBwEthgcr3tz1J5RAVfB DvBRbmsn2mxoOmbyGa7in4Jq0gsAFR6K1aG6T1ILbkciPcj4RtEUwqdlEH0N7EQi Vn2Phx8QNz6+o+MAOI1h7Ta/butqIKrC5nwMtpoKpWK/rc0Y3Wq1zcLVkpYK3+uP K8/6yYxRFUWrG4iTg3GJqq3lLH9DXb/+vNEr3gc6+Gr/djdgbHA=
=azYz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)