similar to: [LLVMdev] SAFECode Source Code Released

John, The release source code (sc-main.tar) won't compile cleanly under Debian6-i386 (gcc/g++: 4.4.5). The compiler back trace is attached. Please fix it/them and repost. Or, 64b system is a requirement? Thank you Chuck llvm[4]: Compiling TypeRuntime.cpp for Release+Asserts build (PIC) cc1plus: warnings being treated as errors

Hi, My apologies for the trouble. I've disabled building DynamicTypeChecks for now (r138224) and now it builds cleanly on 32bit for me here. As for SAFECode support for 32bit vs 64bit, I believe 32bit should work just fine although I haven't personally tested this. Let me know if you have any further issues/questions. ~Will On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Chuck Zhao <czhao at

Dear All, We have a new release of Clang with SAFECode technology for detecting memory safety errors. Memory safety checking (SAFECode for short) can be turned on with a single command line switch to clang/clang++. The SAFECode techniques do not change the behavior of the clang/clang++ compilers in any way when the switch is turned off, so this can be used as a drop-in replacement for

On 2/26/15 9:54 AM, Jyoti Rajendra Allur wrote: > Hello All, > I am looking at exploring what benefits SAFECode has to offer over clang S.A and llvm's instrumentation tools like memory sanitizer and address sanitizer. Are you looking for an off-the-shelf tool, or are you looking for approaches to use in your own tool? > I could come up with the following that are not provided in

Hi: I have been working on Valgrind [porting it to non-supported architectures] and wanted to know what you guys think of Valgrind for LLVM. I haven't thought through fully myself - so wanted to get your inputs before becoming rigid in my own opinion. Original Valgrind works on object code - translating the asm to its own IR [intermediate representation]. But for LLVM, probably putting the

On 4/3/12 9:54 AM, Raphael Ernani Rodrigues wrote: > Dear LLVMers, > > I wrote a new proposal, to improve the static array bounds checking in > SAFEcode, as follows: > > > > Improving static array bounds checking in SAFEcode > ================================================== > > > Objective > --------- > > the main objective of this project is to

Török Edwin wrote: > On 2009-11-14 00:57, John Criswell wrote: > >> Dear LLVMers, >> >> We are happy to announce an alpha release of the SAFECode compiler. It >> is now available for download from the LLVM public Subversion >> repository. SAFECode uses a set of analysis passes and program >> transformations to provide strong memory safety

i want to do something about llvm and valgrind.i have read some information about it in llvm.org. Port Valgrind <http://valgrind.org/> to use LLVM codegeneration and optimization passes instead of its own. is somebody working on it ? can you give me some addvice? is there some project like it? thank you -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hello All, I am looking at exploring what benefits SAFECode has to offer over clang S.A and llvm's instrumentation tools like memory sanitizer and address sanitizer. I could come up with the following that are not provided in ASAN/MSAN/Clang S.A -> dangling pointer error and detection -> crashes in system libraries due to security vulnerabilities. In the process, I wanted to run the

Adve, Vikram Sadanand wrote: > On Mar 30, 2010, at 11:33 AM, John Regehr wrote: > > >> John-- a couple questions: >> >> Can you explain the SAFECode model in a bit more detail? I am getting >> conflicting information. On one hand, some of the papers describe a >> system that is primarily designed to hide safety violations. On the other >> hand,

On Mar 30, 2010, at 11:33 AM, John Regehr wrote: > John-- a couple questions: > > Can you explain the SAFECode model in a bit more detail? I am getting > conflicting information. On one hand, some of the papers describe a > system that is primarily designed to hide safety violations. On the other > hand, the 2006 ICSE paper that I cited earlier today seems to be talking

Abstraction ---------------------------------- This projects will enhance the ‘Baggy Bounds with Accurate Checking’ [1] work. I will provide more efficient runtime checks in BBAC framework by adding more informations to the memory object’s padding area. A new padding area scheme will be designed to make these informations compact and efficient to fetch. I will create some new runtime checks on

Dear All, I've developed a patch for mainline LLVM that integrates parts of the SAFECode memory safety compiler (http://sva.cs.illinois.edu) into LLVM. The patch includes transforms that add run-time safety checks to loads and stores and GetElementPtr instructions, a run-time library that implements the checks, a transform that enhances the run-time checks with source file debugging

On 3/30/12 1:08 PM, Raphael Ernani Rodrigues wrote: > Dear LLVMers, > > My name is Raphael Ernani, and I am doing my MsC at the Federal > University of Minas Gerais, Brazil. I have been using LLVM for a > while, and I would like to participate in this year's Summer of Code. > One particular idea, in your "open projects" page caught my eye, and I > decided to

Hi John and All, Thank you for the your inputs,we tried running Safecode with Liblto on our code base few weeks back,I'm very sorry to say this that we feel that safecode is not so stable and output is not so informative ,Please correct us if i'm wrong here. Thanks Again. ~Umesh On May 25, 2012 7:54 PM, "John Criswell" <criswell at illinois.edu> wrote: > On

John Criswell wrote: > If you're interested in SAFECode, the first step is to get SAFECode > working with a newer version of LLVM. A Master's student did some > work on this last summer with LLVM 3.7 but didn't finish. It would > now need to be updated to LLVM 3.8 (though I suppose a completed LLVM > 3.7 port would be fine with me). > > After that, there are

Jules, The link Chris forwarded (safecode.cs.uiuc.edu) describes the most relevant work so far. But that work aims to make ordinary C and C++ programs memory-safe, without using garbage collection or any other automatic memory management scheme, i.e., allowing dangling pointers but ensuring they are harmless. It also allows any casts that are legal in C. If you want to enforce strict

On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Kostya, > > > [resurrecting an old mail thread about AddressSanitizer false positive > caused by > > load widening] > > > > Once the Attribute::AddressSafety is set by clang (a separate patch), > fixing > > this bug may look as simple as this: > > Hi Duncan, >

Török Edwin wrote: > [snip] > > I applied the attached patch to make it compile on my box (Debian > x86_64), only to find out that x86_64 is not supported :( > This architecture is not supported by the pool allocator! > Aborted > Thanks for the patch. What options do I give to the patch command to apply it to the source code? Although there's no documentation about

Hi John, > We have a new release of Clang with SAFECode technology for detecting > memory safety errors. Memory safety checking (SAFECode for short) can be > turned on with a single command line switch to clang/clang++. The > SAFECode techniques do not change the behavior of the clang/clang++ > compilers in any way when the switch is turned off, so this can be used > as a