similar to: llvm-mc-assemble-fuzzer broken

It worked in August. Last time I’ve asked (again, in August) someone did seem to care, but it is inevitable it would bitrot if it’s not built in any of the bots. George > On May 4, 2018, at 2:53 PM, Davide Italiano via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > While playing with sanitizer in a downstream project, I found out this. > >

Thank you. I went ahead with a speculative fix in r331568. I'm not familiar _at all_ with the tool, so, although the fix was straightforward, another pair of eyes from somebody familiar with the tool would be appreciated. On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 5:10 PM, George Karpenkov <ekarpenkov at apple.com> wrote: > It worked in August. > Last time I’ve asked (again, in August) someone did

Hi All, While trying to put together an MC-based assembler the other day, I again encountered MC's non-obvious memory ownership rules. The most egregious example of these is MCObjectStreamer's destructor: MCObjectStreamer::~MCObjectStreamer() { delete &Assembler->getBackend(); delete &Assembler->getEmitter(); delete &Assembler->getWriter(); delete Assembler;

llvm-dev, Thanks so much in advance for any help, tips, or advice you may be able to offer me. I'm going to try to avoid the big-picture description of the project I'm working on, and only talk about the parts that I have trouble with / currently need to implement. -- I've been starting by taking the source code from the "llvm-mc" tool, and working that down into a

Hi Eric, The main thing we need to fix is that the selection between ELF32/ELF64 needs to depend on the ABI being N64 and not on whether we used a mips-linux-gnu triple versus a mips64-linux-gnu triple. So 'clang -target mips-linux-gnu' -mips64r2 -mabi=64' should produce an ELF64 and 'clang -target mips64-linux-gnu -mips32r2 -mabi=32' should produce an ELF32. In terms of code,

> > > I'd like llvm-isel-fuzzer to be added once its committed consider it done (once it's there) > (which should > be as soon as LLVM fuzzers work in release builds again). One potential > issue is that llvm-isel-fuzzer is more of a collection of fuzzers, and > it needs some arguments to run (ie, to choose the backend). > I have the same problem with

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 4:21 PM, George Karpenkov <ekarpenkov at apple.com> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> As a part of a recent move of libFuzzer from LLVM to compiler-rt I am >> looking into updating the build code >> for the libraries which use libFuzzer.

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Daniel Sanders <daniel_l_sanders at apple.com> wrote: > (removed my @imgtec.com address since it no longer exists) > > Sorry for the slow reply, it's a busy time for me right now. > > > On 23 Aug 2017, at 00:21, George Karpenkov via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > As a

Hi, I've run Clang Static Analyzer checker alpha.cplusplus.NewDeleteLeaks over LLVM codebase to detect false-positives and at the same time eliminate memory leaks. The majority of leaks were detected in lib/Target/* and lib/MC/*. In all cases the similar trick was detected as a leak (example from lib/Target/Sparc/MCTargetDesc/SparcMCTargetDesc.cpp) : static MCStreamer

Hi, As a part of a recent move of libFuzzer from LLVM to compiler-rt I am looking into updating the build code for the libraries which use libFuzzer. I have tried to compile llvm-mc-assemble-fuzzer, and llvm-mc-disassemble-fuzzer, and I couldn’t build either of those. For the first one, the reason is that it refers to a nonexistent enum, and for the second one I believe the reason is that it

I decided to try out the fuzzer library and clang-fuzzer, but it doesn't seem to build for me. From the cmake files, I was pretty sure all I need to do is set -DLLVM_USE_SANITIZE_COVERAGE=ON, but with this I get a number of link errors for "lib/Fuzzer/test/LLVMFuzzer-CounterTest", for example: lib/libLLVMFuzzer.a(FuzzerLoop.cpp.o): In function `SetDeathCallback':

H all, I'm looking at generating PIC code for RISC-V in the context of Linux. Not sure if anyone is working on this already, any inputs are very welcome. I'm now looking at function calls which in the RISCV backend are represented via two pseudoinstructions RISCV::TAIL and RISCV::CALL. Currently those pseudos are lowered in MCCodeEmitter. They are expanded into AUIPC and JALR

Continuing my quixotic effort to get 'check-all' clean, I am seeing a Fuzzer failure on x86-64 Linux. Do any builders run fuzzer tests? FAIL: libFuzzer :: value-profile-mem.test (103 of 103) ******************** TEST 'libFuzzer :: value-profile-mem.test' FAILED ******************** Script: -- : 'RUN: at line 4'; /build/x86_64/./bin/clang --driver-mode=g++ -std=c++11

FWIW I think that one was always flaky. > On Jan 4, 2019, at 2:53 PM, Kostya Serebryany via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > +Matt Morehouse <mailto:mascasa at google.com> > > On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 11:43 AM David Greene via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > Continuing my quixotic effort

Kostya, I think I've found what looks like a reproducible bug in libFuzzer. The code under test is built with ASan and the first ASan CHECK failure shows fuzzer in the stack trace. (see below) One of the factors that may be unique in my testing is that each iteration can take a very long time to execute (tens or hundreds of seconds). Let me know if you need more info, I think it

Kostya, Here's the git repo: https://bitbucket.org/ebadf/fuzzpy I've only tested it on arm7 and x86_64 linux, I expect there's a good chance it may not work on other OSs. If you can build it successfully ("./build.sh", requires clang and clang++ in your path), then you should run the "testemail" case like so: while true; do ITERS=1000 ./run.sh

Ah, yes -- you need to clone with --recursive. I will try the workaround though. On Dec 3, 2015 1:12 PM, "Kostya Serebryany" <kcc at google.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Brian Cain <brian.cain at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Kostya, >> >> Here's the git repo: https://bitbucket.org/ebadf/fuzzpy >> >> I've only

Hello List, I'm currently writing my own little optimization pass (on LLVM 6.0) and considered it a neat idea to fuzz it using llvm-opt-fuzzer, which in theory should be a ready-made tool for such jobs as far as I can tell, potentially helping me to find UB and Address issues in my pass. So I went ahead and followed the instructions in the build manual [1] to build LLVM's llvm-opt-fuzzer

Hi Eric, as I was working on the same issues that are covered in your patch I also made a change in clang driver to pass this option to the assembler. Could you please review it and tell me your opinion? http://reviews.llvm.org/D6091 Thanks Vladimir ________________________________ From: Daniel Sanders Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 8:59 PM To: Eric Christopher; Vladimir Medic; llvmdev at