Add new fuzz binary.

Add new fuzz binary.

This is designed to have short startup time, for maximum fuzzing throughput.

BUG=skia:
GOLD_TRYBOT_URL= https://gold.skia.org/search2?unt=true&query=source_type%3Dgm&master=false&issue=1589563002

Committed: https://skia.googlesource.com/skia/+/65e5824d3a46c468530aba5de4c11b6c8de4cede

[mtklein_C, 2016-01-13 20:23:12]

Description was changed from

==========
Add new fuzz binary.

This is designed to have short startup time, for maximum fuzzing throughput.

BUG=skia:
==========

to

==========
Add new fuzz binary.

This is designed to have short startup time, for maximum fuzzing throughput.

BUG=skia:
GOLD_TRYBOT_URL=
https://gold.skia.org/search2?unt=true&query=source_type%3Dgm&master=false&is...
==========

[mtklein_C, 2016-01-13 20:26:33]

mtklein@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ kjlubick@google.com

[mtklein_C, 2016-01-13 20:26:39]

The CQ bit was checked by mtklein@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-01-13 20:26:46]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1589563002/20001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1589563002/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-01-13 20:28:37]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-01-13 20:28:38]

Dry run: Try jobs failed on following builders:
  Build-Ubuntu-GCC-Arm64-Debug-Android-Trybot on client.skia.compile
(JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/client.skia.compile/builders/Build-Ubuntu-GCC-Arm...)

[mtklein_C, 2016-01-13 20:31:11]

The CQ bit was checked by mtklein@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-01-13 20:31:21]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1589563002/40001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1589563002/40001

[mtklein_C, 2016-01-13 20:37:02]

The CQ bit was checked by mtklein@chromium.org to run a CQ dry run

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-01-13 20:37:11]

Dry run: CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1589563002/60001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1589563002/60001

[kjlubick, 2016-01-13 20:44:00]

lgtm, with one follow-up question

https://codereview.chromium.org/1589563002/diff/60001/fuzz/Fuzz.h
File fuzz/Fuzz.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1589563002/diff/60001/fuzz/Fuzz.h#newcode41
fuzz/Fuzz.h:41: #define ASSERT(cond) do { if (!(cond)) abort(); } while(false)
Does this SEGFAULT?  If so, afl-fuzz will pick this up as a "crash".  I think
this is expected behavior, but I just wanted to run it by you.

[mtklein, 2016-01-13 20:48:27]

mtklein@google.com changed reviewers:
+ mtklein@google.com

[mtklein, 2016-01-13 20:48:28]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1589563002/diff/60001/fuzz/Fuzz.h
File fuzz/Fuzz.h (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1589563002/diff/60001/fuzz/Fuzz.h#newcode41
fuzz/Fuzz.h:41: #define ASSERT(cond) do { if (!(cond)) abort(); } while(false)
On 2016/01/13 20:44:00, kjlubick wrote:
> Does this SEGFAULT?  If so, afl-fuzz will pick this up as a "crash".  I think
> this is expected behavior, but I just wanted to run it by you.

It's SIGABRT, not SIGSEGV, but same idea.

[mtklein_C, 2016-01-13 20:48:52]

The CQ bit was unchecked by mtklein@chromium.org

[mtklein_C, 2016-01-13 20:48:55]

The CQ bit was checked by mtklein@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-01-13 20:49:01]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1589563002/60001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1589563002/60001

[kjlubick, 2016-01-13 20:55:06]

On 2016/01/13 at 20:48:28, mtklein wrote:
> https://codereview.chromium.org/1589563002/diff/60001/fuzz/Fuzz.h
> File fuzz/Fuzz.h (right):
> 
> https://codereview.chromium.org/1589563002/diff/60001/fuzz/Fuzz.h#newcode41
> fuzz/Fuzz.h:41: #define ASSERT(cond) do { if (!(cond)) abort(); } while(false)
> On 2016/01/13 20:44:00, kjlubick wrote:
> > Does this SEGFAULT?  If so, afl-fuzz will pick this up as a "crash".  I
think
> > this is expected behavior, but I just wanted to run it by you.
> 
> It's SIGABRT, not SIGSEGV, but same idea.

I patched it in and checked with afl-fuzz: Should be great.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-01-13 20:57:59]

Description was changed from

==========
Add new fuzz binary.

This is designed to have short startup time, for maximum fuzzing throughput.

BUG=skia:
GOLD_TRYBOT_URL=
https://gold.skia.org/search2?unt=true&query=source_type%3Dgm&master=false&is...
==========

to

==========
Add new fuzz binary.

This is designed to have short startup time, for maximum fuzzing throughput.

BUG=skia:
GOLD_TRYBOT_URL=
https://gold.skia.org/search2?unt=true&query=source_type%3Dgm&master=false&is...

Committed:
https://skia.googlesource.com/skia/+/65e5824d3a46c468530aba5de4c11b6c8de4cede
==========

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2016-01-13 20:58:00]

Committed patchset #4 (id:60001) as
https://skia.googlesource.com/skia/+/65e5824d3a46c468530aba5de4c11b6c8de4cede