search for: checkering

Dear list, we have a relatively new Sun Storage 7310, where we connect CentOS 5.5 Servers (IBM LS21/LS41 Blades) via Brocade Switches, 4GBit FC. The Blades boot from SAN via qla2xxx, and have no harddisks at all. We want them to use multipathing from the very beginning, so /boot and / are already seen by multipathd. Problem is, that the Sun 7310 has two storage heads which run in

Hey, welcome! I'm curious about the unsequenced modification checker, is it something that I should have seen but missed for whatever reason? It might be useful, and I think I'm seeing why don't compiler warnings cover all cases, i.e. why the analyzer's path sensitivity would help here. But I can't answer until I see it :) -eg. on our Phabricator. We are currently having

Hi, Thanks for replying ! On 03/02/2018 10:58 PM, Artem Dergachev wrote: > Hey, welcome! > > I'm curious about the unsequenced modification checker, is it something > that I should have seen but missed for whatever reason? It might be > useful, and I think I'm seeing why don't compiler warnings cover all > cases, i.e. why the analyzer's path sensitivity

Hello, I'm Paul Semel, a French student in computer science. I am currently in my 4th year (1st year of graduate school) at EPITA and enrolled in the system and security laboratory of the school. I would be very interested in working on a LLVM project during this GSoC. Implementing a PoC for an unsequenced modification checker in CSA helped me discover LLVM. However, I would like to

Hi Ted and Others , We we use the switch "--analyze" for clang ,Did all checkers that were pop up from the command "clang -cc1 -analyzer-checker-help" where enabled by default or some are ???? Any documents which says about this ,FYI we referred the information @ http://clang-analyzer.llvm.org/checker_dev_manual.html,But unlucky we couldn't find any points w.r.t default

I''m new to Ruby and RoR; I was messing around with it today and had trouble with error codes. Specifically, the ruby syntax checker frequently spits out ''syntax error'' with the last line of the code as the error line (the error is nowhere near the last line). This is something I''d expect in a pre 1.0 version, but ruby is at 1.8.4, is the ruby syntax

For a change, I am going to try and check the checksum before burning the CDs.... My burner is on a Win2000 box, and I have all 6 of the Centos 5 ISO images there already. So I grab a checker from: http://www.diamondcs.com.au/freeutilities/md5.php And checking the ISO image files with this program, I get different numbers than in the MD5 hash txt file. Can anyone point me to a

Hey, On 02/20/2018 11:51 PM, Paul Semel wrote: > Hello, > > > I'm Paul Semel, a French student in computer science. I am currently in > my 4th year (1st year of graduate school) at EPITA and enrolled in the > system and security laboratory of the school. > > I would be very interested in working on a LLVM project during this > GSoC. Implementing a PoC for an

Hi, I am sharing the proposal [0] which gives a brief introduction for the implementation of the LLVM DI Checker utility. On a very high level, it is a pair of LLVM (IR) Passes that check the preservation of the original debug info in the optimizations. There are options controlling the passes, that could be invoked from ``clang`` as well as from ``opt`` level. By testing the utility on the

Hi, all, I build clang-tidy by "ninja clang-tidy", but when I run below command, I get no checks. Where is the clang-diagnostic* checkers? Thanks in advance. > $ /Users/zyg/Documents/workspace/llvm-project/llvm/cmake-build-debug/bin/clang-tidy --checks="-*,clang-diagnostic-*" --list-checks No checks enabled.

> First, is MPX hardware available now? I wouldn't mind getting my hands on > one. It is available at least in the mobile versions of the recent Intel Skylake CPUs. I am currently playing with Alienware 15 R2 with the following CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-6820HK. Interestingly, my preliminary experiments indicate that adding MPX bounds checking via Pointer Checker in gcc is usually

Hello, This is updated version of nodatacow patch. To check whether a given file extent is referenced by multiple snapshots, the checker walks down the fs tree through dead root and checks all tree blocks in the path. We can easily detect whether a given tree block is directly referenced by other snapshot. We can also detect any indirect reference from other snapshot by checking

I've recently played with the GCC implementation of pointer checker on a real hardware, my recent impressions are here: https://github.com/google/sanitizers/wiki/AddressSanitizerIntelMemoryProtectionExtensions (there is also some old pre-hardware content). In short, I totally agree with what David says above: MPX is a disaster. (Usual disclaimer: my opinion here is too biased) I am glad

Hi R Helpers, I'm still new to R and i experience many difficulties..I'm using vegan package (R version 2.11) trying to calculate checkerboard units for each species pair of a matrix. I've prepared the function: pair.checker=function (dataset) {designdist (dataset, method="c("(A-J)x(B-J)", terms ="binary", abcd=FALSE)} to use with function oecosimu as

Thanks for the detailed explanation. So is changing the analysis technique from path sensitive (symbolic execution) analysis to some other technique bring in the soundness property ? Thanks, Siddharth On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 1:27 AM, Artem Dergachev <noqnoqneo at gmail.com> wrote: > Nope, at least not with the "path-sensitive" (symbolic execution) engine. > Which is the

Hi Ted, Doug said you might have a clang-based checker that would detect when people allocate memory with a BumpPtrAllocator and then construct a class into it that needs destruction. In killing valgrind-found memory leaks in LLVM, I've found several instances of this mistake. They often involve SmallVectors, which only show up as leaks in valgrind if they happen to overflow their static

Smatch complains that "rc" can be uninitialized if we hit the "break;" statement on the first iteration through the loop. I suspect that this can't happen in real life, but returning a zero literal is cleaner and silence the static checker warning. Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter at oracle.com> --- drivers/virtio/virtio_mem.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1

Am 08.05.2015 11:56, schrieb Amit Shah: > On (Fri) 08 May 2015 [11:30:09], walter harms wrote: >> >> >> Am 08.05.2015 11:16, schrieb Dan Carpenter: >>> My static checker complains that this sprintf() can overflow but really >>> it can't. Just silence the warning by using snprintf(). >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter

Am 08.05.2015 11:56, schrieb Amit Shah: > On (Fri) 08 May 2015 [11:30:09], walter harms wrote: >> >> >> Am 08.05.2015 11:16, schrieb Dan Carpenter: >>> My static checker complains that this sprintf() can overflow but really >>> it can't. Just silence the warning by using snprintf(). >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter

Hello developers, My name is Zhihan Chen and I am currently a year 4 computer science student at the University of Hong Kong. I am interested in building a checker for dangling string pointer. I've learned some essential knowledge about compiler from our university course and built a mini-compiler on my own (Available at https://github.com/CHEN- Zhihan/Compiler). I've gone through the