similar to: Clang not work

Hi Teresa Thanks for your very quick and clear explanation. I have one more question. The emit-llvm option will give you the IR for a single source file when you compile it with -c. All of those files when combined give the IR in the preopt.bc temp file. =========== So if I use "clang -emit-llvm -c" to generate the .ll file. It should be the same as the one I generated by using

There should be a line-table entry for the end of the function, which appears to be missing from the dump you provided. llvm-dwarfdump should report this address with 'end_sequence' in the Flags. Are you using a different dumper? I am not sure but my guess would be that inline data is not represented in the line table. The line table's primary purpose is to inform the debugger

Hi I use the LDFLAGS=" -flto -fuse-ld=gold -Wl,-plugin-opt=save-temps " to generate the makefile and to make the whole program. However, found four different kinds of bitcode for each target. For example, I am compiling coreutils. For the program "nohup", I can get nohup.0.0.preopt.bc nohup.0.2.internalize.bc nohup.0.4.opt.bc nohup.0.5.precodegen.bc If I am right, I

I'm not familiar with the target instruction set, but if "MOV PC, R0" is not a return instruction, I'm guessing that the sequence starting at A39C is a dispatch through a jump table. The jump table would be considered part of the instruction stream and included in the scope of the line table. This is not a case where you would see end_sequence; my mistake. The line table does

These are the bitcode at different stages of the LTO portion of the compile. LTO merges the IR for all files being linked and optimizes them as a single monolithic module. The preopt.bc is the merged IR just after merging and before performing any LTO optimizations. internalize.bc is after performing whole program internalization. opt.bc is after the optimization pipeline, and .precodegen.bc is

Hi Paul Thanks for your comments. Suppose I can generate the control flow graph via LLVM Pass or the default option like '-dot-cfg' with opt. However, the control flow graph is based on llvm IR level. I would like to have a control flow graph based on binary level. Thus, I want to map the IR to binary address. As far as I know, we used to use the debug information to map the IR to source

Hi paulr Thanks for your reply. Though DWARF info give me the code address ranges, there might be inline data. If so, how to handle this case? As for the dwarf line table. Sometimes, the source line might be zero. Do you know why? If all instructions should be describe in the line table, I think analyzing Dwarf line table is enough to get all the instructions addresses. Do you agree? I would

Hi However, frontend may also do various operations on the source code and one line number and column number could map to more than one binary address. Why LLVM IR cannot? Regrads Muhui 2018-06-12 23:18 GMT+08:00 mayuyu.io <admin at mayuyu.io>: > In theory that’s not exactly possible/accurate. Due to various operations > in the Backend like Instruction Legalization, one IR

Hi Alex Thanks for your email. But it seems not work. I removed the -fsanitize=address flag. The global buffer overflow message doesn't show. However, no *.sancov file is created after I run perlbench. Thus, I could not get the BB coverage. Do you have any ideas? Many Thanks Regards Muhui Alexander Potapenko <glider at google.com> 于2018年9月5日周三 下午7:14写道： > Hi Muhui, > > If

Hi Actually, No particular reason. I just think this might be a solution, then I use think kind of method. Querying the symbol table would be a good choice, but I prefer to use LLVM and dwarf information. I am sorry that I am not familiar with debug_info. But thanks to your suggestions. I would like to try to solve it with debug_info. It seems work according to your comments By the way, I am

Hi My goal is that given a binary and the corresponding input. I want to know what IR level basic blocks are covered. I need the detail information, which is the set of all the covered BBs rather than just a number. I want to know whether there are some tools that can support this requirements. If not, I think maybe instrumentation can helps. However, I do not know too much about this. Any

Hi Krzysztof Thank you very much for your quick and clear reply. I know that MIR may not match hardware instructions directly. However, I think the semantics should be similar. For example, the first instruction is a store-multiple instruction in ARM. I think the first four MIR I shown should have the similar semantics with the first three hardware instructions. I still cannot see the

Hi I know that LLVM provide some debug API for us to know the source code information. For example, every IR instruction's source line number and column number. However, are there any method to get a mapping from IR instruction to binary address directly. I don't want to use dwarf line mapping table as a bridge. I think the binary is generated by clang and llvm. I think there definitely

On 6/15/2018 11:58 AM, Muhui Jiang wrote: > Is it possible to dump both the frame setup/cleanup MIR and the MIR I > have at this moment? You can dump the MIR after each pass with -mllvm -print-after-all. Look for "Prologue/Epilogue Insertion". -Krzysztof -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

Hi I am building the llvm IR to generate the control flow graph. I am using autotools(configure, make) to compile my whole program. I use the -save-temps option to save the llvm IR. Now I would like to generate a control flow graph on binary level. I may need the dwarf information to know the mapping between source code and binary code. Besides, I may also need to know the relationship between

Hi David Thank you very much for your suggestions. ScopeLine works well. It could represent the start of a function. Do you know whether I can get the start column of this function? Many Thanks Regards Muhui 2018-05-30 3:25 GMT+08:00 David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>: > > > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 5:25 AM Muhui Jiang via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>

Hi Krzysztof I see and I agree with your explanation However, you know some start of art binary analysis tools like angr will accept LLVM's such kind of design. You know there are some non-return functions. Does LLVM consider this? Do you have any ideas if I want to create a block that cannot contain function calls with LLVM IR. Regards Muhui 2018-05-29 21:20 GMT+08:00 Krzysztof Parzyszek

On 5/29/2018 7:59 AM, Muhui Jiang via llvm-dev wrote: > So the reason why basic blocks can contain function calls is because of > code inlining? Not really. Basic blocks are units of code in a context of a specific function. When execution reaches a function call, it will go outside of the current function for some time, but then it will return back to the instruction following the

Hi I need a concolic execution framework based on LLVM. As far as I know, KLEE might be the best choice. However, KLEE(the stable version) is based on LLVM 3.4. I compiled my code with the latest LLVM, whose version is 7.0. Anyone know whether the bitcode could be used by KLEE. Or do I have to compile with the old version of LLVM again. Furthermore, if you have any other concolic execution

Hi I was wondering whether there are any methods to know what part of the target binary is code. I have some ideas and hope to get your comments. I would like to use LLVM's source level debugging information to extract the source lines belonging to every functions. Then use the dwarf mapping table to transfer the source level information to binary address. Are there any better methods?