search for: isempti

Actually, neither of these methods are needed for ImmutableSet. ImmutableSet already has an 'isEmpty()' method and I have never really seen a case where "size()" needs to be explicitly calculated. If you need size() itself, however, this seems like a perfectly valid addition. On Feb 11, 2009, at 10:57 AM, Ted Kremenek wrote: > > On Feb 11, 2009, at 10:54 AM, Bill

On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Ted Kremenek <kremenek at apple.com> wrote: > Actually, neither of these methods are needed for ImmutableSet. > ImmutableSet already has an 'isEmpty()' method and I have never really seen > a case where "size()" needs to be explicitly calculated. If you need size() > itself, however, this seems like a perfectly valid addition.

On Feb 11, 2009, at 10:54 AM, Bill Wendling wrote: > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Ben Laurie <benl at google.com> wrote: >> I needed these for some work I'm doing in clang... >> > Yes sir! At least this message was informative. One thing: > > + int size() const { > + int n = 0; > + for(iterator i = begin() ; i != end() ; ++n, ++i) > + ;

Hi everyone, The MachineLICM pass has a heuristic such that, even in low-register-pressure situations, it will refuse to hoist "cheap" instructions out of loops. By default, when an itinerary is available, this means that all of the defined operands are available in at most 1 cycle. ARM overrides this, and provides this more-customized definition: bool ARMBaseInstrInfo::

On Feb 11, 2009, at 8:14 PM, Ben Laurie wrote: > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Ted Kremenek <kremenek at apple.com> > wrote: >> Actually, neither of these methods are needed for ImmutableSet. >> ImmutableSet already has an 'isEmpty()' method and I have never >> really seen >> a case where "size()" needs to be explicitly calculated. If

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 4:47 AM, Ted Kremenek <kremenek at apple.com> wrote: > On Feb 11, 2009, at 8:14 PM, Ben Laurie wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Ted Kremenek <kremenek at apple.com> wrote: >>> >>> Actually, neither of these methods are needed for ImmutableSet. >>> ImmutableSet already has an 'isEmpty()' method and I have

Hello everybody, I've run into some strange behavior with memory sanitizer that I can't explain and hope somebody with more knowledge of the implementation would be able to help me out or at least point me into the right direction. For background, I'm using memory sanitizer to check Julia (julialang.org), which uses (or at least will once I track down a few bugs) MCJIT for the code

I assume there are transitions between JITted code and native helper functions. How are you handling them? Are native functions MSan-instrumented? MSan is passing shadow across function calls in TLS slots. Does your TLS implementation guarantee that accesses to __msan_param_tls from JITted and from native code map to the same memory? On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:36 PM, Evgeniy Stepanov

I have verified that both TLS implementations indeed find the same area of memory. Anything else I could look for? On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 4:28 PM, Keno Fischer <kfischer at college.harvard.edu>wrote: > Yes, both JIT code and the native runtime are instrumented. I am under the > impressions that the the C library should guarantee that from the way the > relocations are

Here's a code generated with -Os on darwin/x86_64 with clang from the Xcode 4.2 GM toolset on Mac OSX 10.7.2 (Apple clang version 3.0 (tags/Apple/clang-211.10.1) (based on LLVM 3.0svn), Target: x86_64-apple-darwin11.2.0) 0x000000010277d281 <+2102> lea 0x1d43bd0(%rip),%rax # 0x1044c0e58 <gFloorPlanCutData> 0x000000010277d288 <+2109> movaps 0x80(%rax),%xmm0

How is ccall() implemented? If it manually sets up a stack frame, then it also needs to store argument shadow values in paramtls. I don't think there is an overflow, unless you have a _lot_ of arguments in a function call. On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Keno Fischer <kfischer at college.harvard.edu> wrote: > Also, I was looking at the instrumented LLVM code and I noticed that the

Hi, Got everything built but am now experiencing new errors on making the symbol tables and on 'make check'. Here's the errors I am experiencing :- Aaron Gray at AMD-LAPTOP-1 /usr/llvm-gcc/lib $ ls gcc libdummy.a libiberty.a libstdc++.a libsupc++.la libc.a libgcc.a libm.a libstdc++.la libtrace.a libcrtend.a libgcsemispace.a

The code for ccall looks right. Sounds like you have a very small range of instructions where an uninitialized value appear. You could try debugging at asm level. Shadow for b should be passed at offset 0 in __msan_param_tls. MSan could propagate shadow through arithmetic and even some logic operations (like select). It could be that b is clean on function entry, but then something uninitialized

Does not look like the demangle test worked anyway :( And 'make check' :- $ make check make[1]: Entering directory `/usr/build/llvm-gcc/gcc' (rootme=`${PWDCMD-pwd}`; export rootme; \ srcdir=`cd /usr/cfrontend/src/gcc; ${PWDCMD-pwd}` ; export srcdir ; \ cd testsuite; \ EXPECT=expect ; export EXPECT ; \ if [ -f ${rootme}/../expect/expect ] ; then \ TCL_LIBRARY=`cd

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" /><style type="text/css"><!-- #msg dl { border: 1px #006 solid; background: #369; padding:

Looks like when you materialize the stores, you should check the size of the the store and emit an appropriate amount of stores to the origin shadow (or just a memset intrinsic?). On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Keno Fischer <kfischer at college.harvard.edu>wrote: > The @entry stuff is just a gdb artifact. I've been tracking this back a > little further, and it seems there's

Yes, it would be great to get that fixed. On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Evgeniy Stepanov <eugeni.stepanov at gmail.com>wrote: > On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 12:21 AM, Keno Fischer > <kfischer at college.harvard.edu> wrote: > > Looks like when you materialize the stores, you should check the size of > the > > the store and emit an appropriate amount of stores to the

This is http://llvm.org/pr10514 Unfortunately the fix did not make it into that version of clang. On Oct 20, 2011, at 7:47 AM, Somorjai, Akos wrote: > Here's a code generated with -Os on darwin/x86_64 with clang from the Xcode 4.2 GM toolset on Mac OSX 10.7.2 (Apple clang version 3.0 (tags/Apple/clang-211.10.1) (based on LLVM 3.0svn), Target: x86_64-apple-darwin11.2.0) > >

Samba 3.0.28-0.1.95-1624-SUSE-SL10.3 A strange problem (best read in a proportional font). It only happens on an x64 XP client when accessing a Samba share. The exact same program runs fine on the same x64 XP client when the share accessed is on a Windows server or when it is run on a 32-bit XP client, regardless of whether the share belongs to a Samba server or to a Windows server. I have

Aaron, Could you send me the libiberty.a file? Please gzip it. I would like to make sure this isn't an llvm-ranlib bug. Thanks, Reid. On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 15:36 +0100, Aaron Gray wrote: > Hi, > > Got everything built but am now experiencing new errors on making the > symbol tables and on 'make check'. > > Here's the errors I am experiencing :- > >