search for: jtcriswell

Sir, I am interested in add a new pass. I have read about analysis, transformation passes. Can you help me with some example ideas? On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 1:39 AM, John Criswell <jtcriswel at gmail.com> wrote: > On 3/22/16 11:15 AM, Om Shivom Nagpal wrote: > > Sir, > I am interested in adding a new analysis or optimization pass and building > the getting started guide as a

Sir, I am interested in adding a new analysis or optimization pass and building the getting started guide as a project for gsoc. On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 1:29 AM, John Criswell <jtcriswel at gmail.com> wrote: > On 3/17/16 10:58 AM, Om Shivom Nagpal wrote: > > No i have not worked previously on llvm. I have looked through the > projects but because of no prior experience i am

On 3/22/16 11:15 AM, Om Shivom Nagpal wrote: > Sir, > I am interested in adding a new analysis or optimization pass and > building the getting started guide as a project for gsoc. Okay. Decide which of these two projects you'd like to propose and write up a description of the project. Be sure to include some details. For example, if you're going to improve the

Dear Simon, Kevin is correct; as far as I can tell, there is no method of getting the functions calling a given function. Instead, you have to start at the main() function and search for the function using a depth-first or breadth-first search. What may make sense is to build a new data structure that has nodes that point from callees to callers once and then use that for your queries.

Hi Simon, > From: Simone Atzeni <simone.at at gmail.com> > To: John Criswell <jtcriswel at gmail.com> > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Walking thru CallGraph bottom up > Message-ID: <318EBA41-2040-4EFE-B330-5813C817C2A2 at gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > I think I got it and the example is

John, thanks for your helpful advice. My ultimate goal is to construct a full instruction-level program dependence graph for a given IR file. The hard point is how to establish the correct data dependence edges when some function arguments are multi-level pointers. To solve this problem I hope to check the point-to level for each pointer variable. I think the data dependence through pointers can

Hi, John Criswell Thank you very much. I am installing LLVM-3.2, but I encounter the next error when carrying out "make": llvm[3]: Compiling ClangASTNodesEmitter.cpp for Release+Asserts build ClangASTNodesEmitter.cpp: In member function ‘std::pair<llvm::Record*, llvm::Record*><unnamed>::ClangASTNodesEmitter::EmitNode(const std::multimap<llvm::Record*, llvm::Record*,

On 1/30/15 11:32 PM, Qiuping Yi wrote: > Hi, John Criswell > > Thank you very much. > > I am installing LLVM-3.2, but I encounter the next error when carrying > out "make": Is this error occurring when compiling the version of Clang within SAFECode or standard Clang? If it's the former, you should know that you don't need to compile SAFECode to use

...ity so that we can hijack its > control flow; > > then I enforce cfi of llvm and we can't hijack its control flow. > > Do you have any advice for me? > > > The CFI implementation we updated to work with x86-64 for the KCoFI > project is available at https://github.com/jtcriswell/SVA. You'll need > to create the exploit code (and potentially the vulnerability) yourself. > If you read the literature on CFI and memory safety (some of which is > cataloged at http://sva.cs.illinois.edu/menagerie), you should be able to > find programs and vulnerabilities that h...

I am just not upgrade my LLVM. So I must use some higer LLVM version, right? -------------------------------------------- Qiuping Yi Institute Of Software Chinese Academy of Sciences On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 11:21 PM, John Criswell <jtcriswel at gmail.com> wrote: > On 1/30/15 10:17 AM, Qiuping Yi wrote: > > Thank you. But now I am using LLVM 2.9, so which version of poolalloc I

Thanks John, The reason I want to do this is that register allocator works only on SSA form, and if you instrument regallocated code with non-regallocated machine instructions, then you cannot regallocate the result. A workaround is to assign physical registers while doing the instrumentation, which I don't think is as easy as the above. On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:01 AM, John Criswell

Hi, I am wondering if anyone could run ArrayBoundChecks located in SafeCode-llvm37 (https://github.com/jtcriswell/safecode-llvm37) on llvm-3.8? Thanks. Syed -- Rafi

On 1/30/15 10:24 AM, Qiuping Yi wrote: > I am just not upgrade my LLVM. So I must use some higer LLVM version, > right? Yes. For working with poolalloc, I would recommend using LLVM 3.2 as we know poolalloc compiles with LLVM 3.2. If there's a release_29 branch for poolalloc, you could use that, but you won't get any bug fixes that we added between poolalloc 2.9 and poolalloc

Yes, I have done exactly the same. The wawanalyzer is the same. I changed ARM.h and ARMTargetMachine.cpp in the tager/arm folder. then I make tool/llc and lib folder. On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:55 AM, John Criswell <jtcriswel at gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/17/15 12:16 AM, fateme Hoseini via llvm-dev wrote: > > Hi, > So, I run my pass in X86 target with llc command and it printed

Hi all, Can anyone give me advice about an appropriate way for extracting number of functions from module recursively (starting from entry point). Actually it may be more than one entry point so all dependent functions and global values must be extracted. I've tried llvm-extract tool but it can't do work recursively. Maybe it would be good to write some Call Graph pass or something. Any

...The first is the CallGraph pass that comes in the LLVM source tree. It is very conservative with function pointers, but its results are conservatively correct. The second is the CallGraph analysis within DSA. You should be able to find a copy for LLVM 3.7 or LLVM 3.8 here (https://github.com/jtcriswell/safecode-llvm37) and here (https://github.com/jtcriswell/llvm-dsa). Regards, John Criswell > > > Thanks in advance, > Alexey Zasenko > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm...

Thanks John. Does this solve the problem of analysis availability though? If I still have to run the function analyses manually, I might as well keep rolling with the CallGraphSCCPass. (I probably should have mentioned that this is what I’m using right now.) Félix > Le 2015-05-19 à 10:12:32, John Criswell <jtcriswel at gmail.com> a écrit : > > On 5/18/15 10:45 PM, Félix Cloutier

No i have not worked previously on llvm. I have looked through the projects but because of no prior experience i am unable to pick one. I am currently going through the llvm tutorials. On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:32 PM, John Criswell <jtcriswel at gmail.com> wrote: > On 3/8/16 10:12 AM, Om Shivom Nagpal via llvm-dev wrote: > > Hi, I am Om Shivom pursuing CSE from PEC University of

On 6/18/15 6:49 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: > Hi John, > > Long term we don't want to keep the burden of two build systems in > tree. CMake is turning out to be the build system we want because of > its multi-platform support, etc and as soon as the CMake system can do > everything we can do with the autoconf/makefile build I plan on > turning down the support for that

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Christopher" <echristo at gmail.com> > To: "John Criswell" <jtcriswel at gmail.com>, LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu, "Chris Bieneman" <beanz at apple.com> > Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 7:14:06 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Long-Term Support for LLVM Projects Extension to Build System? > > > On