similar to: Fwd: [GSOC 2018] Dangling string pointer checker

Hello llvm-dev I am Sunil Mayya studying Masters in Electrical and computer engineering at TU Kaiserslautern Germany. I am having few C++ programming experience with the industry and use clang static analyzer for my project. I am interested in the project "Create a checker for dangling string pointers in C+" I have C++11 and C++14 knowledge. I have started browsing through the source

Hello Developer Team, My name is Rustam Khadipash, I am a forth year student in Computer Science at Pusan National University. This summer I would like to contribute to your project, however I do not have experience in contributing to open source societies so far. Therefore, I would like to start with not a difficult, in my opinion, project as "a checker for dangling string pointers in

Hi, Thanks for replying ! On 03/02/2018 10:58 PM, Artem Dergachev wrote: > Hey, welcome! > > I'm curious about the unsequenced modification checker, is it something > that I should have seen but missed for whatever reason? It might be > useful, and I think I'm seeing why don't compiler warnings cover all > cases, i.e. why the analyzer's path sensitivity

Hey, On 02/20/2018 11:51 PM, Paul Semel wrote: > Hello, > > > I'm Paul Semel, a French student in computer science. I am currently in > my 4th year (1st year of graduate school) at EPITA and enrolled in the > system and security laboratory of the school. > > I would be very interested in working on a LLVM project during this > GSoC. Implementing a PoC for an

Hello, I'm Paul Semel, a French student in computer science. I am currently in my 4th year (1st year of graduate school) at EPITA and enrolled in the system and security laboratory of the school. I would be very interested in working on a LLVM project during this GSoC. Implementing a PoC for an unsequenced modification checker in CSA helped me discover LLVM. However, I would like to

Hey, welcome! I'm curious about the unsequenced modification checker, is it something that I should have seen but missed for whatever reason? It might be useful, and I think I'm seeing why don't compiler warnings cover all cases, i.e. why the analyzer's path sensitivity would help here. But I can't answer until I see it :) -eg. on our Phabricator. We are currently having

Hi Eric, As you are pointed to be the confirmed mentor for the "Command line replacements for GNU Binutils" GSOC 2018 subject, I permit myself to add you to this thread ! If you have a few minutes to answer my questions, that'd really great 🙂 On 03/01/2018 08:43 PM, Paul Semel wrote: > Hey, > > On 02/20/2018 11:51 PM, Paul Semel wrote: >> Hello, >>

Hi Tim, You seem to be working around BLX support on ARM, and this linker error has cropped up on our buildbot: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-thumbv7-a15-full-sh/builds/3526 llvm/tools/clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Checkers/MallocChecker.cpp:

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 6:27 AM, Dmitrii Kuvaiskii < Dmitrii.Kuvaiskii at tu-dresden.de> wrote: > I continue playing with Intel MPX and its support in modern compilers. > All experiments were done on the Alienware (Dell) 15 R2, Ubuntu 15.10 > (linux 4.2.0), gcc version is 5.2.1, icc version 2016.1.150. The > benchmark suite is PARSEC 3.0, all versions with 1 thread and default

Am 08.05.2015 11:56, schrieb Amit Shah: > On (Fri) 08 May 2015 [11:30:09], walter harms wrote: >> >> >> Am 08.05.2015 11:16, schrieb Dan Carpenter: >>> My static checker complains that this sprintf() can overflow but really >>> it can't. Just silence the warning by using snprintf(). >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter

Am 08.05.2015 11:56, schrieb Amit Shah: > On (Fri) 08 May 2015 [11:30:09], walter harms wrote: >> >> >> Am 08.05.2015 11:16, schrieb Dan Carpenter: >>> My static checker complains that this sprintf() can overflow but really >>> it can't. Just silence the warning by using snprintf(). >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter

> First, is MPX hardware available now? I wouldn't mind getting my hands on > one. It is available at least in the mobile versions of the recent Intel Skylake CPUs. I am currently playing with Alienware 15 R2 with the following CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-6820HK. Interestingly, my preliminary experiments indicate that adding MPX bounds checking via Pointer Checker in gcc is usually

Hello, As far as I know, there is no MPX pass in LLVM (though the x86-64 backend already declares MPX registers and instructions). I wonder if anyone is currently working on the LLVM pass for MPX instrumentation, similar to Pointer Checker in gcc. If yes, could anyone elaborate on the status and accessability to other researchers? And if any help is needed? Prof. Santosh Nagarakatte, the author

I've recently played with the GCC implementation of pointer checker on a real hardware, my recent impressions are here: https://github.com/google/sanitizers/wiki/AddressSanitizerIntelMemoryProtectionExtensions (there is also some old pre-hardware content). In short, I totally agree with what David says above: MPX is a disaster. (Usual disclaimer: my opinion here is too biased) I am glad

Dear All, I'm Gábor Borsik, a first-year M.S. student from Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest. I have learned about compilers in the university, and I really liked it. I am currently working on a clang-tidy checker witch detects poorly seeded random generators(https://reviews.llvm.org/D44143). After that, I would like to work on LLVM and I love to continue the project in GSoC. I mostly

Dear All, I'm Gábor Borsik, a first-year M.S. student from Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest. I have learned about compilers in the university, and I really liked it. I am currently working on a clang-tidy checker witch detects poorly seeded random generators(https://reviews.llvm.org/D44143). After that, I would like to work on LLVM and I love to continue the project in GSoC. I mostly

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 4:59 AM, Dmitrii Kuvaiskii < Dmitrii.Kuvaiskii at tu-dresden.de> wrote: > >> Recently I played with MPX support on Intel C/C++ Compiler (icc). This > >> implementation looks *much* better, with the following example > >> overheads: 1.2X on "raytrace", 1.25X on "bodytrack", 1.08X on > >> "streamcluster".

I have updated one of my S4 DCs to 4.5.5, somewhat excited about the line in the ChangeLog * Bug #12600 - dbcheck does not find or fix dangling links on live objects Do I misunderstand the scope of this bug? # samba-tool dbcheck --cross-ncs --fix --reset-well-known-acls ... ERROR: no target object found for GUID component for member in object CN=Domain Users,CN=Users,XXXXX -

Hi Ted and Others , We we use the switch "--analyze" for clang ,Did all checkers that were pop up from the command "clang -cc1 -analyzer-checker-help" where enabled by default or some are ???? Any documents which says about this ,FYI we referred the information @ http://clang-analyzer.llvm.org/checker_dev_manual.html,But unlucky we couldn't find any points w.r.t default

On Tue, 2017-11-21 at 11:21 +0100, Achim Gottinger via samba wrote: > Hello List, > > In preparation to update my samba ad-dc's running debian wheezy with > backported samba 4.6.8 to 4.7.3. > I'd like to fix two errors showing up in dbcheck whom hab been reported > by dbckech --cross-ncs for an long time but without causing any issues > so far. > > I'm