similar to: [LLVMdev] measuring the stack size

On Thu, 2008-04-17 at 10:49 -0700, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, guan mailist wrote: > > Does anyone have good ideas to dynamically measure the stack size of a > > program by using LLVM. > > I am trying to add some new intrinsic functions after each "alloca" in > > bitcode. Is it a good way to do it? > > Any existing tools can help me to do

On Apr 17, 2008, at 13:00, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: > On Thu, 2008-04-17 at 10:49 -0700, Chris Lattner wrote: > >> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, guan mailist wrote: >> >>> Does anyone have good ideas to dynamically measure the stack size >>> of a >>> program by using LLVM. I am trying to add some new intrinsic >>> functions after each

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, guan mailist wrote: > Does anyone have good ideas to dynamically measure the stack size of a > program by using LLVM. > I am trying to add some new intrinsic functions after each "alloca" in > bitcode. Is it a good way to do it? > Any existing tools can help me to do so? Depending on how much precision you need, you could use the llvm.frameaddress

I mean to compute the upper bound dynamically at run time, not statically at compile time. Is it possible to do so by LLVM? If so, how? by using "llvm.frameaddress"? Is it precise? Thanks, GUan Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: > On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 03:01 +0100, guan mailist wrote: > > >> Is it possible to compute the upper bound of stack size in bits? >>

Dear All, Does anyone have good ideas to dynamically measure the stack size of a program by using LLVM. I am trying to add some new intrinsic functions after each "alloca" in bitcode. Is it a good way to do it? Any existing tools can help me to do so? Any help will be deeply appreciated. Thank you, GUanhua -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 23:48 +0100, Óscar Fuentes wrote: > "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <shap at eros-os.com> writes: > My front-end is very similar to yours in the feature of the multiple > instantiations on demand, etc. Oscar: after you have a chance to read my recent reply to Gordon, would you be kind enough to let me know whether you still believe the situations are similar.

GCC for AVR is awesome but, as far as I know, until very little time ago, compiler support for PIC was close to none. 2008/5/19 Jonathan S. Shapiro <shap at eros-os.com>: > I have a client who might well make use of an AVR32 port, but I suspect > that machine is very different than the one you are currently examining. > > > shap > On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 12:38 -0600, John

"Jonathan S. Shapiro" <shap at eros-os.com> writes: [snip] > 4. Is there a better/cleaner approach? What other options should I > consider? My front-end is very similar to yours in the feature of the multiple instantiations on demand, etc. One thing I learnt about LLVM is that it's philosophy is to be a friendly backend for frontends, but whatever your frontend

"Jonathan S. Shapiro" <shap at eros-os.com> writes: [snip] > if (!(sym = llvm_resolve_global(GlobalScope, symName))) > some_failure_action(); > > it would now look something like: > > sym = llvm_resolve_global(GlobalScope, symName); > if (!sym && frontend_has_symbol_generator > && frontend_generate_symbol(symname)) >

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <shap at eros-os.com> wrote: > > All functions in the tutorial are referenced by their Function*. The > > Function* uniquely identifies a function and is independent of the name. > > I had understood that. > > So now I have compiled and run my top level expression's anonymous > function. How do I go

> Message: 5 > Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 21:47:12 -0500 > From: "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <shap at eros-os.com> > Subject: [LLVMdev] PPC calling convention -- how to provide an > environment pointer? > To: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Message-ID: <1233024432.24380.11.camel at vmx> > Content-Type: text/plain > > This is

On 6/6/07, Sandro Magi <naasking at gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/5/07, John Criswell <criswell at cs.uiuc.edu> wrote: > > > > To be honest, while I understand your questions, I do not understand the > > context in which you are asking them. Are you asking if LLVM provides > > any facilities to provide these protections, or are you asking if we've > >

Alex: I'm not sure you're taking the right approach with this. You can either have portability or you can play games with the calling convention assumed by the back end, or you can modify the compiler to suit your desired calling convention, but you probably can't get all three. I'm the guy behind HDTrans (dynamic binrary translation for x86), and we used direct x86 instruction

On 6/5/07, John Criswell <criswell at cs.uiuc.edu> wrote: > > To be honest, while I understand your questions, I do not understand the > context in which you are asking them. Are you asking if LLVM provides > any facilities to provide these protections, or are you asking if we've > added any special features to LLVM (or to SVA; our research work based > on LLVM) to

> Message: 8 > Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:00:26 -0500 > From: "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <shap at eros-os.com> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] PPC calling convention -- how to provide an > environment pointer? > To: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Message-ID: <1233097226.27873.11.camel at vmx> > Content-Type: text/plain > > On

We have a research project that is developing a Secure Virtual Architecture using LLVM as the instruction set, and implementing via a VM which we call a Secure Virtual Machine. The memory safety foundations of this work are based on Dinakar Dhurjati's thesis and publications: http://llvm.org/pubs/ SVA is at a very preliminary stage but some slides about it are attached.

In the course of applying Shapiro-Wilk to 100,000 samples of 60 items from 100,000 different distributions, I encountered a fatal error in apply(). This can be reconstructed as follows, using the attached data file distr.dat containing 2 lines of my original 100,000-line file: > version _ platform Windows arch x86 os Win32 system x86, Win32 status

Let me cut it down to the core problem: I'm asking about the feasibility of extending LLVM with constructs to manage separate heaps. Given my current understanding of LLVM, I can see this done in two ways: 1. Add heap management instructions to the core instructions, modify allocation routines to explicitly name heaps or modify the runtime to rebind the allocation routines depending on some

Hi, I am trying to create a table with information from Shapiro Wilk's test of normality. However, it fails due to lack of sample size, it says, but the way I see it, this is not a problem. (See the table of sample sizes (almost) at the bottom). Applying a different function using a similar ftable call is not a problem (See the bottom table). This is R 2.1.0 on Linux (Gentoo). /Fredrik

Many VMs focus on performance, optimizations, memory consumption, etc. but very few, if any, focus on fault isolation and security. Given memory safety, any VM reduces to capability security, which is sufficient to implement most security policies of interest; however, most such VMs still ignore two main attack vectors from malicious code: DoS attack on memory allocation, and DoS against the CPU.