similar to: [LLVMdev] SSI and ABCD for LLVM

Dear Nicolas, I'm curious why you are using ABCD in vmkit. Do you need any features from static array bounds checking? As far as I know, SAFECode has a number of implementation for that. Thanks. Haohui On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 20:48 +0200, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > Dear Andre, > > That's great! Thanks for the blog. I am really looking forward into > using ABCD in vmkit!

Mai, Haohui wrote: > Dear Nicolas, > > I'm curious why you are using ABCD in vmkit. Do you need any features > from static array bounds checking? As far as I know, SAFECode has a > number of implementation for that. > > Thanks. > > Haohui > > On Thu, 2009-06-04 at 20:48 +0200, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > >> Dear Andre, >> >> That's

Dear Andre, That's great! Thanks for the blog. I am really looking forward into using ABCD in vmkit! Cheers, Nicolas Andre Tavares wrote: > Dear Community, > > I'm working on a project for Google Summer of Code, to implement the > ABCD and Bitwidth analysis in LLVM. I'm not going to extend the > description of the project here, this link shows my proposal >

By static array bounds checking, I mean eliminating array bounds checking which can be proved ``safe'' at compile-time. Well, even though there are a lot of approaches of doing this, I believe that having an implementation of ABCD would very useful. It would be even more useful if LLVM can have a general framework for doing static array bounds checking -- just like the aliasing framework.

Dear LLVM Community, I am one of the summer of coders working on LLVM this year. My project is to implement the ABCD algorithm for array bounds checking, and also a bitwidth analysis that maps variables to an approximation of its size in bits. To implement this, I will have to simulate a intermediate representation called SSI (Static Single Information) form on top of LLVM SSA

Vikram S. Adve wrote: > On Jun 5, 2009, at 9:26 AM, Mai, Haohui wrote: > > >> By static array bounds checking, I mean eliminating array bounds >> checking >> which can be proved ``safe'' at compile-time. >> > > Even though SAFECode does have such a pass, there are some tradeoffs > with the current version: > > 1. It uses an

On Jun 5, 2009, at 9:26 AM, Mai, Haohui wrote: > By static array bounds checking, I mean eliminating array bounds > checking > which can be proved ``safe'' at compile-time. Even though SAFECode does have such a pass, there are some tradeoffs with the current version: 1. It uses an external solver (Omega), which is one more dependence for LLVM in general. I don't have

I'm developing the ABCD algorithm for LLVM, and I will need to store some information as a digraph. I was thinking of a list of adjacency, implemented with a map<Instruction, Set<Node>>. The node would have an Instruction and a value. I opted for map and set, because I will create the graph once and will search on it a bunch of times, and will never remove a node. Is there

Dear LLVM Community, I'm a Computer Science master student at UFMG, Brasil. I'm interested in taking part on Google Summer of Codes 2009. My idea is not on the LLVM list, but I have written a project description to make my intentions clear. My project is attached as a pdf file. Regards, -- Andre Tavares Master Student in Computer Science - UFMG - Brasil http://dcc.ufmg.br/~andrelct

2009/3/27 Andre Tavares <andrelct at dcc.ufmg.br> > I'm a Computer Science master student at UFMG, Brasil. I'm interested in > taking part on Google Summer of Codes 2009. My idea is not on the LLVM list, > but I have written a project description to make my intentions clear. My > project is attached as a pdf file. By changing LLVM IR from SSA to SSI, you propose to

Hello, LLVM-Java has been rendered obsolete by http://vmkit.llvm.org/ so look into using VMKit instead. --Sam ----- Original Message ---- > From: Andre Tavares <andrelct at dcc.ufmg.br> > To: LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Monday, May 18, 2009 10:09:42 AM > Subject: [LLVMdev] llvm-java > > Hello, > > I'm working on a project to remove unnecessary array

Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Andre, > > >> I'm trying to build LLVM-gcc to compile Ada. >> > > excellent! > > But I'm having a few problems. > > Oops :( > > >> Now when I ran make I get an error that for me it seams very weird. >> >> ../../gcc/c-format.c: In function 'set_Wformat': >> ../../gcc/c-format.c:48: error:

2009/3/29 Misha Brukman <brukman at gmail.com>: > 2009/3/27 Andre Tavares <andrelct at dcc.ufmg.br> >> >> I'm a Computer Science master student at UFMG, Brasil. I'm interested in >> taking part on Google Summer of Codes 2009. My idea is not on the LLVM list, >> but I have written a project description to make my intentions clear. My >> project

I tried to make 5 separate patches, but as they are constructive, they had information from the last one. So I will post one by one as it gets on the tree. 1. We had a function isUsedInTerminator that tested if a comparator was used in the terminator of its parent BasicBlock. This is wrong because a comparator can be created in a BasicBlock and used in the terminator of other BasicBlock, and

Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > Andrew Haley wrote: > >> I should have asked a better question. By "does it work" I meant something >> like >> >> for (int i = 0; i < a.length; i++) >> System.out.println(a[i]); >> >> > > OK, so no :) VMKit does not know that a[i] is related to a.length. I > believe Andre's

Hello, I'm working on a project to remove unnecessary array bound checks in Java. For this purpose I will need to use llvm-java. What is the state of llvm-java? Can someone explain how to build and use it? I saw some old emails on the list, and some about a SoC 2008 on Java, but I didn't find anything regarding its current state and documentation. Regards, -- Andre Tavares Master

Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Eric, > > >> I'm having problems building llvm-gcc for Ada, which may or may not be >> similar to the trouble Andre was having recently. I'm trying to build >> it on Fedora 10 (32-bit), using the instructions on the web site. The >> make terminates with a gnatbind error: >> >> gcc -c -g -O2 -gnatpg -gnata

Why not use SmallPtrSet instead of std::vector? Isn't there something in LLVM I can use? Eli Friedman wrote: > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Andre Tavares<andrelct at dcc.ufmg.br> wrote: > >> I was thinking of a list of adjacency, implemented with a >> map<Instruction, Set<Node>>. The node would have an Instruction and a >> value. I opted for

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Andre Tavares<andrelct at dcc.ufmg.br> wrote: > I was thinking of a list of adjacency, implemented with a > map<Instruction, Set<Node>>. The node would have an Instruction and a > value. I opted for map and set, because I will create the graph once and > will search on it a bunch of times, and will never remove a node. Something like

Hello, I'm trying to build LLVM-gcc to compile Ada. But I'm having a few problems. First thing I did was install gnat 2007. In the bin directory there is a gcc version 4.1. So I think that these versions are good for Ada. Now when I ran make I get an error that for me it seams very weird. ../../gcc/c-format.c: In function 'set_Wformat': ../../gcc/c-format.c:48: error: