similar to: [LLVMdev] failure notice

Gordon Henriksen wrote: > Hi Jon, > > On 2007-12-10, at 18:28, Jon Harrop wrote: > > >> On Monday 10 December 2007 23:14, Gordon Henriksen wrote: >> >> >>> On 2007-12-10, at 18:04, Sarah Thompson wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> Is it reasonable for me to hack on this, or would you rather do >>>>> it

Hi Jon, On 2007-12-10, at 18:28, Jon Harrop wrote: > On Monday 10 December 2007 23:14, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > >> On 2007-12-10, at 18:04, Sarah Thompson wrote: >> >>>> Is it reasonable for me to hack on this, or would you rather do >>>> it yourself? (If the latter, you would be very much in my debt...) >>> >>> Or the other way

On Monday 10 December 2007 23:14, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > On 2007-12-10, at 18:04, Sarah Thompson wrote: > >> Is it reasonable for me to hack on this, or would you rather do it > >> yourself? (If the latter, you would be very much in my debt...) > > > > Or the other way around, or something. :) > > :) I'm adding it now. I'd really appreciate JIT

On 2007-12-10, at 18:04, Sarah Thompson wrote: > >> Is it reasonable for me to hack on this, or would you rather do it >> yourself? (If the latter, you would be very much in my debt...) > > Or the other way around, or something. :) :) I'm adding it now. — Gordon

Hi all, I'm considering using ocaml for some experiments I want to try -- does the binding currently support reading existing bitcode, or just generating it? I want to try out some program transformation ideas that would probably be rather easier to express in ocaml than C++. Thank you in advance, Sarah Thompson

On Dec 10, 2007, at 16:52, Sarah Thompson wrote: > I'm considering using ocaml for some experiments I want to try -- > does the binding currently support reading existing bitcode No, but it's easily added… — Gordon

Hi Sarah, On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 15:11 -0700, Sarah Thompson wrote: > I'll almost certainly come along, possibly with one or two other NASA > people. Great! If/when you know their names, have them drop me a line here. I'd rather put down names than "Sarah+2". Thanks. > I could give a talk on our work using LLVM to support model > checking, symbolic execution and

> Is it reasonable for me to hack on this, or would you rather do it > yourself? (If the latter, you would be very much in my debt...) Or the other way around, or something. :) [s]

I can't make it on the 22nd, but I will be there if it's on the 29th. Ryan Brown On 3/23/07, Reid Spencer <rspencer at reidspencer.com> wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 15:11 -0700, Sarah Thompson wrote: > > I'll almost certainly come along, possibly with one or two other NASA > > people. > > Great! If/when you know their names, have them

I'll almost certainly come along, possibly with one or two other NASA people. I could give a talk on our work using LLVM to support model checking, symbolic execution and static analysis if anyone is interested. Sarah Thompson RSE/6G, NASA Ames >

Hi Sarah, On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 10:05 -0700, Sarah Thompson wrote: > Hi all, > > I've been quiet for a while, but I'm liable to be less so now that I'm > starting on porting our model checker from LLVM 1.8 to 2.0. We missed you! :) > One thing > that is puzzling me somewhat are the changes made to the GenericValue > union, which is now a struct. I

Hi folks, I'm currently extending my model checker to collect coverage information, and as part of this I'm finding a need to get a more friendly version of munged C++ identifiers than the name used by the linker. For example, though internally, something like '_Z7thread1Pv' is fine as an identifier, I'd like to be able to give the user something more readable. Since

Check out http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes -Chris http://nondot.org/sabre http://llvm.org On Jul 27, 2007, at 12:00 PM, Sarah Thompson <thompson at email.arc.nasa.gov > wrote: > Hi folks, > > Assuming that I'm writing a pass and that for bizarre reasons I need > to > programmatically do the equivalent of a C/C++ sizeof on a Value (or a > Type, it doesn't

Just to give closure here, I eventually gave up, built an Ubuntu 9 VMWare image which uses gcc 4.3.2 by default, installed Eclipse Ganymede and various other tools, then built LLVM 2.5 and my own code. It all ran fine. There is clearly something broken in the CentOS gcc43 package. Definitely one to avoid. [s] On Apr 28, 2009, at 5:40 PM, Sarah Thompson wrote: > (My script does both

Hi all, I've been quiet for a while, but I'm liable to be less so now that I'm starting on porting our model checker from LLVM 1.8 to 2.0. One thing that is puzzling me somewhat are the changes made to the GenericValue union, which is now a struct. I haven't found any mention of this on the llvm site or in the archives, so it may be that I am the only one who cares about it

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Sarah Thompson wrote: > > >> Do I understand correctly that there is nothing that the current gcc >> front end generates that wouldn't fit an old-style GenericValue? I'm >> wondering if this might be an interim approach that would avoid me >> needing to rewrite huge amounts of code, and since we're not

Reid Spencer wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > On Tue, 2007-07-17 at 10:05 -0700, Sarah Thompson wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I've been quiet for a while, but I'm liable to be less so now that I'm >> starting on porting our model checker from LLVM 1.8 to 2.0. >> > > We missed you! :) > > Yes, apologies again for not making the

We build debug by default. You will have to add ENABLE_OPTIMIZED=1 on the "make" command line or --enable-optimized during configuration. -bw On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Sarah Thompson <sarah at findatlantis.com> wrote: > Hmm... looks like my LLVM build script only built debug versions of > the tools, not release versions. I'm investigating, I didn't change

Hi all, I am currently working on a static analysis aimed at integer arithmetic overflow/underflow detection. We are attempting to build a sound abstract domain (based on Cousot & Cousot-style abstract interpretation), but practically speaking this really requires the ability to figure out the word size and signedness of values in the intermediate representation. I'm well aware

On Tue, 17 Jul 2007, Sarah Thompson wrote: > Do I understand correctly that there is nothing that the current gcc > front end generates that wouldn't fit an old-style GenericValue? I'm > wondering if this might be an interim approach that would avoid me > needing to rewrite huge amounts of code, and since we're not likely to > be supporting anything other than C and C++