search for: intptrti

(Resending with the correct mailing list address.) Hi, Currently test/asan/TestCases/alloca_vla_interact.cc is XFAILed for powerpc64. I've had a look at why it doesn't work. I think the only problem is in the call to __asan_allocas_unpoison that is inserted at the end of the "for" loop (just before a stackrestore instruction). The call function is created something like this

On Fri, 13 May 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: >> Ah ok, in that case, the CBE should be fixed. There are other cases that >> could cause long arguments to exist on 32-bit systems. If the C compiler >> takes issue with this, it would be best to tell the CBE to emit casts to C >> (long) or something. > > Actually that's the only case I stumbled over this

Hi llvm-devel, I have migrated my codebase from llvm-3.6 to llvm 3.8.1-stable. Although I was able to resolve most of the problems, I am facing issues resolving the following: To insert an instruction immediately after the first instruction within a basic block, I first get all instructions in my basic block in an instruction container list. Once that is done, I insert my new instruction in the

Jon, > You want: > TaintVar->insertAfter(FirstI); This worked! Thank you. On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Jonathan Roelofs <jonathan at codesourcery.com> wrote: > > > On 8/25/16 7:01 AM, Shehbaz Jaffer via llvm-dev wrote: >> >> I tried an alternative way of adding instruction by first getting the >> first instruction of the basic block, and then

Hi! Sorry for delay, just returned from vacation. On 12/11/15 23:44, Kostya Serebryany via llvm-dev wrote: > +Maxim and Yuri, as I think this is their code. > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 3:02 AM, Jay Foad <jay.foad at gmail.com > <mailto:jay.foad at gmail.com>> wrote: > > (Resending with the correct mailing list address.) > > Hi, > > Currently

On Fri, 13 May 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > There is still one unneeded LongTy in LowerInvoke.cpp - something like this > pseudo-diff should probably get applied. What does this impact? -Chris > Index: LowerInvoke.cpp > =================================================================== > RCS file: /var/cvs/llvm/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LowerInvoke.cpp,v >

On Fri, 13 May 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Fri, 13 May 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: >> >>> There is still one unneeded LongTy in LowerInvoke.cpp - something like >>> this pseudo-diff should probably get applied. >> >> >> What does this impact? > > This causes code like > > write(2,

On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 08:06 +0200, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Actually that's the only case I stumbled over this problem in a somewhat > larger C++ program, and it's clearly the wrong type in LowerInvoke.cpp - > it really should be IntPtrTy. But maybe we could use just IntTy here to > avoid target dependencies. Wait a minute. You want to lower a 64 bit thing to a 32

Jay, do you have a PowerPC64 target? If so, could you please check attached patch on PPC box? This is a draft patch, but it would be nice to make sure that we are moving to right direction here. Thanks, -Maxim On 18/11/15 00:12, Jay Foad wrote: >>> Currently test/asan/TestCases/alloca_vla_interact.cc is XFAILed for >>> powerpc64. I've had a look at why it

Hi, all I found in some cases the int variable get promoted to i64, although I think it should i32. I use the online demo (http://llvm.org/demo). And below is the test case. ------------- test case ------------- int test(int x[], int y[], int n) { int i = 0; int sum = 0; for ( ; i < n; i++) { sum += x[i] * y[i]; } return sum; } ------------------------------------- No

On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 31 Jan 2017 8:58 p.m., "Kostya Serebryany" <kcc at google.com> wrote: > > hmm. I am not sure I understood you. The last two paragraphs seem to > contradict each other. > So, you recommend to extend read_register to read the PC, or > "read_register is locked at the

In LowerGET_DYNAMIC_AREA_OFFSET() you're calling MFI->getMaxCallFrameSize(), but it looks like that doesn't return useful information until after the PrologEpilogInserter's PEI::calculateCallsInformation() has run. So maybe the lowering has to be done as part of frame index elimination? (I'm not too familiar with this code.) Jay. On 23 November 2015 at 13:07, Jay Foad

Hi, I've been having some trouble implementing a new intrinsic for LLVM and I was wondering if someone might know the answer. LLVM has an llvm.returnaddress intrinsic, but for a specific project, I need to be able to modify the return address of a function as well, so I'm implementing a new intrinsic: def int_setreturnaddress : Intrinsic<[], [llvm_i32_ty, llvm_ptr_ty], []>;

On 31 Jan 2017 8:58 p.m., "Kostya Serebryany" <kcc at google.com> wrote: hmm. I am not sure I understood you. The last two paragraphs seem to contradict each other. So, you recommend to extend read_register to read the PC, or "read_register is locked at the stack pointer as a design decision"? Both. :-) There was a design decision to only support SP because we had no

Hi, > I believe the LowerCall is doing what it needs to do - passing pointer either on the stack or in register as per ABI. >From very quick test-cases with no understanding of XCore, that looks plausible. > LowerFormalArguments () calls CCInfo.AnalyzeFormalArguments(Ins, CC_XCore), which calls the CC_XCore(). > This is where I placed the CCIfByVal<CCPassByVal<0,4>>

Hi Tim, I may be missing something but using CCPassByVal is moving the pointer onto the stack - not what I'm after. I need to add an operation to the function prolog that actually makes a copy of the pointed to data. It is the responsibility of the callee to make the copy, not the caller - hence my trouble. (currently the callee can corrupt the original data viz pass-by-reference!) This

Hi Tim, Thank you for the input. I think I follow you. I believe the LowerCall is doing what it needs to do - passing pointer either on the stack or in register as per ABI. The LowerFormalArguments() is where I am stuck. LowerFormalArguments () calls CCInfo.AnalyzeFormalArguments(Ins, CC_XCore), which calls the CC_XCore(). This is where I placed the CCIfByVal<CCPassByVal<0,4>> which

Hi all, Please review this patch. It's fixing PR3232 comment #8. Function bar from 2008-03-24-BitFiled-And-Alloca.c compiles to: %struct.Key = type { { i32, i32 } } ... define i32 @bar(i64 %key_token2) nounwind { entry: %key_token2_addr = alloca i64 ; <i64*> [#uses=2] %retval = alloca i32 ; <i32*> [#uses=2] %iospec =

Dear LLVM developers, Our team has developed an LLVM-based protection mechanism that (i) prevents control-flow hijack attacks enabled by memory corruption errors and (ii) has very low performance overhead. We would like to contribute the implementation to LLVM. We presented this work at the OSDI 2014 conference, at several software companies, and several US universities. We received positive