search for: gribov

Inviting Paul to the party (he wrote the libstdc++ sort checker <https://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/google/gcc-4_9/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_algo.h> ). On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:09 PM, Yury Gribov <y.gribov at samsung.com> wrote: > On 01/13/2016 10:08 AM, Yury Gribov wrote: > >> On 01/13/2016 09:57 AM, Kostya Serebryany wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 10:28 PM, Yury Gribov <y.gribov at samsung.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> On...

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 11:05 PM, Yury Gribov <y.gribov at samsung.com> wrote: > > On 12/19/2014 01:14 AM, Nick Lewycky wrote: > >> On 12/16/2014 02:43 AM, Yury Gribov wrote: >> >>> On 12/15/2014 10:24 PM, Ismail Pazarbasi wrote: >>> >>>> s.d = 42.0; >>>> if (s.l &g...

On 01/13/2016 09:57 AM, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 10:28 PM, Yury Gribov <y.gribov at samsung.com> wrote: > >> On 01/13/2016 03:10 AM, Kostya Serebryany wrote: >> >>> FTR, here is one way to implement this in the library: >>> >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/google/gcc-4_9/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_algo.h >&...

> Is this just a textual/syntactic thing?  If so, you should add a bit to MCAsmInfo to indicate that this is the behavior, and MCAsmPrinter should be changed to emit labels in this syntax. Thanks! This should be enough. -Yuri

My internet is finally back. Could someone verify and submit this patch? I have verified build, tests and unittests on X86. On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Yuri Gribov <tetra2005 at googlemail.com> wrote: >> Is this just a textual/syntactic thing?  If so, you should add a bit to MCAsmInfo to indicate that this is the behavior, and MCAsmPrinter should be changed to emit labels in this syntax. > > Thanks! This should be enough. > > -Yuri &gt...

...14, 2016 at 3:43 AM, Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov at google.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 4:17 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: >> Inviting Paul to the party (he wrote the libstdc++ sort checker). >> >> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 11:09 PM, Yury Gribov <y.gribov at samsung.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 01/13/2016 10:08 AM, Yury Gribov wrote: >>>> >>>> On 01/13/2016 09:57 AM, Kostya Serebryany wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 10:28 PM, Yury Gribov <y.gribov at sams...

On 12/16/2014 02:43 AM, Yury Gribov wrote: > On 12/15/2014 10:24 PM, Ismail Pazarbasi wrote: >> s.d = 42.0; >> if (s.l > 100) // fire here > > Note that code like this is frequently used to convert integers to > floats so you'll get tons of false positives. True positives. The fix is to use m...

> By the way, locally, I now have just over half the ASan test suite > passing ARM-Linux via QEMU. Greg, Do you mean that you've added support for QEMU-based testing to sanitizer CMakeLists? That would be super-cool. -Y

> Does %run support ssh-based testing? Yes, %run is configured by the user. I configure it to call a shell script that calls qemu-arm. It could just as easily ssh or "adb push && adb shell". -Greg On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Yury Gribov <y.gribov at samsung.com> wrote: > Greg, > > >> Clever, but I hope we can try to avoid the symlink hackery. Locally, >> I've renamed "%sim %t" to "%run %t" so it reads quite nicely, IMHO. > > Does %run support ssh-based testing? qemu-arm is...

...ed variables). > We don't preserve ulimit setting, I modified one or two tests to not > rely on that. > > I don't mind switching to a combined approach - copy to device on > %clang, and replace symlink hacks with %run. > > > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 9:09 AM, Yury Gribov <y.gribov at samsung.com> wrote: >>> We considered adding "%run" to all binary invocations, >>> but dropped this idea. I don't remember the details, but IIRC %run is >>> just not general enough. >> >> >> IMHO this is where simplicity...

> We considered adding "%run" to all binary invocations, > but dropped this idea. I don't remember the details, but IIRC %run is > just not general enough. IMHO this is where simplicity of lit approach starts to fail - important information (environment variables, dependent shared libs, expected test status, etc.) is buried inside arbitrarily complex runstrings. -Y

...m-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> (+correct cfe-dev list) >> >> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Yuri, >>> >>> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Yury Gribov via llvm-dev < >>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer currently does not check for undefined >>>> behaviors which result from improper usage of standard library functions. &...

Ah, so LLVM already requires GNU make. Fine, than I'll submit the patch in the evening. - Yuri Gribov

...or two tests to not >> > rely on that. >> > >> > I don't mind switching to a combined approach - copy to device on >> > %clang, and replace symlink hacks with %run. >> > >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 9:09 AM, Yury Gribov <y.gribov at samsung.com> >> > wrote: >> >>> We considered adding "%run" to all binary invocations, >> >>> but dropped this idea. I don't remember the details, but IIRC %run is >> >>> just not general enough. >> >&gt...

On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 3:38 AM Iurii Gribov via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > (Readding Hal) > > > Are you suggesting that we should be more aggressive by default (i.e. > without -fvisibility=hidden or any new options)? > > I believe that will be too aggressive for class LTO visibility. > >...

On 09/25/2015 11:53 AM, Jakub Jelinek via llvm-dev wrote: > On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 01:19:48AM -0700, Renato Golin wrote: >> After long talks with lots of people, I think we have a winning >> strategy to deal with the variable nature of VMA address in AArch64. >> It seems that the best way forward is to try the dynamic calculation >> at runtime, evaluate the performance,

On 07/16/2014 11:45 AM, Tim Northover wrote: >>> As has been mentioned several times (*), LLVM and GCC setup frame pointer to >> point to different stack slots on ARM. GCC's fp points to stack slot holding >> lr while LLVM's fp points at the next slot. > > This looks flipped from my tests. Both create an { fp, lr } struct; > GCC sets current fp to the address

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 20 April 2016 at 13:18, Yury Gribov <y.gribov at samsung.com> wrote: >> Not when dead store happens in an external DSO where compiler can't detect >> it (same applies for single references). > > Do you mean the ones between the DSO and the instrumented code? > Because if it's just in the DSO itself,...

On 04/20/2016 02:58 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev wrote: > Hi Derek, > > I'm not an expert in any of these topics, but I'm excited that you > guys are doing it. It seems like a missing piece that needs to be > filled. > > Some comments inline... > > > On 17 April 2016 at 22:46, Derek Bruening via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 10:27 PM, Yury Gribov via cfe-dev < cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > As for C++11, it has for e.g. srtd::sort: > > "Requires: operator< (for the version with no arguments) or comp (for the > version with a comparison argument) defines a strict weak ordering (25.4)." > > whic...