Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "lctes03".
Did you mean:
lctes
2006 Dec 20
2
[LLVMdev] Problems with new bytecode format
Hi Reid,
--- Reid Spencer <rspencer at reidspencer.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 17:32 -0800, Roman Levenstein wrote:
> > But since the new llvm-dis cannot disassemble, I cannot use
> > llvm-upgrade, since I need a way to produce an *.ll file.
>
> If you can't do as Bill suggested (get the latest llvm-gcc and
> compile
> it), you can use this approach:
2004 Apr 02
1
[LLVMdev] Re: llvm -> array bound checking at compile time
Dear Boris,
I managed to see your question and rescue it from the llvm-announce
mailing list filter. I'm forwarding your question to the
llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu mailing list; that list is used for questions and
answers about LLVM.
For future reference, the llvm-announce list is used to send
announcements regarding LLVM releases. The llvmdev list is for general
discussion.
Now, on to
2015 Oct 09
2
llvm-dev Digest, Vol 136, Issue 22
...*any* run-time checks or GC. We found that array bounds checks were the biggest problem; ignoring these, we can ensure the safety of pointer and dynamic memory usage in all the embedded benchmarks we tried without any run-time checks. The paper appeared at LCTES:
http://llvm.org/pubs/2003-05-05-LCTES03-CodeSafety.html
Like the later work, this did not eliminate use-after-free but used APA to ensure that any use-after-free errors are “harmless” in that they did not violate all the other type- and memory-safety guarantees.
Let me know if you have any questions about this.
--Vikram
// Vikram S....
2011 Oct 20
0
[LLVMdev] LLVM Language Reference Strictness
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 2:37 AM, Shea Levy <shea at shealevy.com> wrote:
>. The
> (probably impossible) end-goals to this project would be a) that every
> program which passes its checks would be as safe to run in kernel mode
> with full memory access as it would be in user mode
That would be a very useful thing to have for embedded systems. Some
such as uCLinux run ports of
2011 Oct 20
4
[LLVMdev] LLVM Language Reference Strictness
On 10/19/11 11:58 PM, Eli Friedman wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Shea Levy<shea at shealevy.com> wrote:
>> 2. Are target-specific behaviors documented for each supported target?
> When anything has target-specific behavior, that fact should be
> documented. Beyond that, if you have a question about what some
> construct is supposed to do, please ask.
What I