fuzzgen: Add fcvt_* ops#4958
Merged
Merged
Conversation
2ee7cd7 to
7e271f6
Compare
7e271f6 to
1d19c7f
Compare
jameysharp
approved these changes
Sep 27, 2022
Contributor
jameysharp
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hooray, more opcodes!
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
👋 Hey,
Following up from #4884 (Thanks!) this PR introduces
fcvt_*ops to the fuzzer. Additionally it also adds a pass to minimize the number of traps generated by these ops.Like the
int_divzpass, the number of traps generated doesn't seem to correspond with the amount requested in the config. I think I've actually figured out something here, if I limit the amount of bytes the fuzzer uses, the amount of traps is reduced by a lot. (I got 0.4%int_ovfwith-max_len=2048)That leads me to believe that we get such a high number of traps due to executing a lot of inputs. This is something that I want to look further into since I think there could actually be a performance benefit from limiting this.
As a sanity check I also tried to benchmark with 100% insertion rate, and as expected we don't get the other traps.
Benchmarks
Baseline
This PR
I've seen the
int_ovftrap count vary a lot while testing, from 0.4% up to almost 7%.This PR while always applying the trap pass
cc: @jameysharp