search for: hangal02tracking

I'm using LLVM to instrument C code to test the efectiveness of some methods of error detection with dynamic invariants (see http:// citeseer.ist.psu.edu/hangal02tracking.html). I'm using also a range invariant (max an min values seen). The problem is that for those invariants, I need to know if the value is signed or not (0xFF can be -1 or 255, depending on signed/unsigned). Alberto El 26/06/2007, a las 18:22, Chris Lattner escribió: > On Tue, 26 Ju...

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, [ISO-8859-1] Alberto González wrote: > The problem is that what i'm instrumenting is loads and stores, plus > function call arguments and return values, which have no signedness > information. Why do you need this? -Chris > El 26/06/2007, a las 17:03, Anton Korobeynikov escribió: > >> Hello, Alberto. >> >>> I'm using llvm for

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, [ISO-8859-1] Alberto González wrote: > I'm using LLVM to instrument C code to test the efectiveness of some > methods of error detection with dynamic invariants (see http:// > citeseer.ist.psu.edu/hangal02tracking.html). I'm using also a range > invariant (max an min values seen). The problem is that for those > invariants, I need to know if the value is signed or not (0xFF can be > -1 or 255, depending on signed/unsigned). Why not track the value range as both signed and unsigned? You have to...

...l 26/06/2007, a las 20:05, Chris Lattner escribió: > On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, [ISO-8859-1] Alberto González wrote: >> I'm using LLVM to instrument C code to test the efectiveness of some >> methods of error detection with dynamic invariants (see http:// >> citeseer.ist.psu.edu/hangal02tracking.html). I'm using also a range >> invariant (max an min values seen). The problem is that for those >> invariants, I need to know if the value is signed or not (0xFF can be >> -1 or 255, depending on signed/unsigned). > > Why not track the value range as both signed and u...