search for: tmroeder

Hi, I'm trying to compile release 3.2 of DragonEgg (checked out from http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/dragonegg/branches/release_32. I'm at revision 170458), under Ubuntu (Ubuntu 12.04.1 LTS (GNU/Linux 2.6.39-gcg-20121018 x86_64)) and I get the following error. tmroeder at myubuntu:~/src/dragonegg$ make Compiling utils/TargetInfo.cpp Linking TargetInfo Compiling Aliasing.cpp /root/src/dragonegg/src/Aliasing.cpp:37:23: fatal error: auto-host.h: No such file or directory compilation terminated. make: *** [Aliasing.o] Error 1 tmroeder at myubuntu:~/src/dragonegg$ my...

...gt; > I'm trying to compile release 3.2 of DragonEgg (checked out from > http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/dragonegg/branches/release_32. I'm at > revision 170458), under Ubuntu (Ubuntu 12.04.1 LTS (GNU/Linux > 2.6.39-gcg-20121018 x86_64)) and I get the following error. > > tmroeder at myubuntu:~/src/dragonegg$ make > Compiling utils/TargetInfo.cpp > Linking TargetInfo > Compiling Aliasing.cpp > /root/src/dragonegg/src/Aliasing.cpp:37:23: fatal error: auto-host.h: > No such file or directory > compilation terminated. > make: *** [Aliasing.o] Error 1 > t...

...svn/llvm-**project/dragonegg/branches/**release_32<http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/dragonegg/branches/release_32>. >> I'm at >> revision 170458), under Ubuntu (Ubuntu 12.04.1 LTS (GNU/Linux >> 2.6.39-gcg-20121018 x86_64)) and I get the following error. >> >> tmroeder at myubuntu:~/src/**dragonegg$ make >> Compiling utils/TargetInfo.cpp >> Linking TargetInfo >> Compiling Aliasing.cpp >> /root/src/dragonegg/src/**Aliasing.cpp:37:23: fatal error: auto-host.h: >> No such file or directory >> compilation terminated. >> make:...

...oject/dragonegg/branches/__release_32 > <http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/dragonegg/branches/release_32>. I'm at > revision 170458), under Ubuntu (Ubuntu 12.04.1 LTS (GNU/Linux > 2.6.39-gcg-20121018 x86_64)) and I get the following error. > > tmroeder at myubuntu:~/src/__dragonegg$ make > Compiling utils/TargetInfo.cpp > Linking TargetInfo > Compiling Aliasing.cpp > /root/src/dragonegg/src/__Aliasing.cpp:37:23: fatal error: auto-host.h: > No such file or directory > compilation te...

On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Tom Roeder <tmroeder at google.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Richard Osborne <richard at xmos.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 11 Feb 2014, at 08:15, Eric Chris...

...29 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:28:52AM -0700, Tom Roeder wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Tom Roeder <tmroeder at google.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > I'm definitely interested in removing the inline asm bits. I'm not > > > > sure what you mean by a pseudo-plt, though; do you mean hooking into > > > > the code that generates the Procedure Linkage Tabl...

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>wrote: > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Tom Roeder <tmroeder at google.com> wrote: > > > > I'm definitely interested in removing the inline asm bits. I'm not > > sure what you mean by a pseudo-plt, though; do you mean hooking into > > the code that generates the Procedure Linkage Table? I really don't > > know muc...

...s. Well, the intrinsic you proposed has no effect on the caller and has non-local effects on other specified functions. I'm not aware of any other intrinsic with similar behavior. On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:01:24PM -0700, Tom Roeder wrote: > On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Tom Roeder <tmroeder at google.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > >> > >> > >> An alternative proposal: introduce a new function attribute named, say, > >> 'jumptable', which would cause the backen...

Hi, In my work applying -flto to Chrome, I need to set some names to be skipped by the InternalizePass; otherwise, the linking stage fails (i.e., when building the chrome binary). In the past, I had a tiny patch that I hadn't submitted to LLVM: it was something like: Index: Internalize.cpp =================================================================== --- Internalize.cpp (revision

On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:12 AM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:28 AM, Richard Osborne <richard at xmos.com> wrote: >> >> >> On 11 Feb 2014, at 08:15, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 11:51 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: >> >>

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Tom Roeder <tmroeder at google.com> wrote: > Thanks for the followup. > > If I understand the suggestion correctly, this doesn't solve the > problem of building a jump table to call into other functions, since, > as you note, indirectbr can only call into blocks in the same > function. Is the...

Thanks for the followup. If I understand the suggestion correctly, this doesn't solve the problem of building a jump table to call into other functions, since, as you note, indirectbr can only call into blocks in the same function. Is the conclusion then that there is no way to do this in LLVM IR? It looks like these kind of restrictions (no branching between functions and no instructions

We have developed and tested an optimization pass using LLVM, and have been able to build other software such as gzip while running our pass by passing "clang" and "-Xclang -load -Xclang <path to .so>" as configure options. Now we would like to try and build android while running our pass only on certain files. It seems that android has its own version of LLVM built into

Hi everyone, I've been working on control-flow integrity (CFI) techniques over LLVM, and I'd like to get feedback on these techniques and their potential usefulness as a part of LLVM. I'd like to submit some patches for this; I've implemented a version of it, and I've applied it to large, real-world programs like Chromium to see how well it holds up in practice. TL;DR: my

On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 06:54:55PM -0700, Reid Kleckner wrote: > I think it's a little scary to assume things about LLVM's x86 code > generation. I haven't really finished the codegen side of the change, but > I'm pretty sure in it's current state it will emit extra loads and stores, > even if they are unnecessary. Right, I had similar concerns. Now that I've

AFAIK, this won't work: the way I want to use a jump table requires me to get a pointer into the table that I can use as a function pointer to call the original function in a normal call instruction. If I just add a new basic block in some containing function with a call instruction and somehow get a pointer to that instruction, then this does satisfy the goal of putting the new instructions

Hi, I'm currently writing an opt module for fast indirect call checks using a table of allowed indirect call targets. The code replaces function pointers with offsets into the table then masks the offset for the table size and restores the function pointer before the call. I have some ways of dealing with some kinds of external code that are sufficient for my use case but not for more general