similar to: [LLVMdev] llvm

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

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

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

Hi, I've seen on the LLVM's Open Projet Page [1] an idea about using LLVM to generate native code in Valgrind. For what I know, Valgrind uses libVEX to translate native instructions into a bitcode, used to add the instrumentation and then translated back to native code for execution. Valgrind and LLVM are two tools that I use nearly every day. I'm also very interested in code

Hi All , I'm not sure the question is relevant to the forum,My apologies if not We are trying to instrument our code with ASan(Clang) to find the memory errors and we see that the application execution halts when the Asan check finds the memory issue at the being. Which mean we need to fix the issue then compile and execute the instrumented code again to find the next issue and so on

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

On 5/25/12 6:57 AM, Umesh Kalappa wrote: > Hi All , > > I'm not sure the question is relevant to the forum,My apologies if not > > We are trying to instrument our code with ASan(Clang) to find the > memory errors and we see that the application execution halts when > the Asan check finds the memory issue at the being. Which mean we need > to fix the issue then

Daniel, Kostya, We had a meeting with the Clang people (Chris, Doug, Ted) on Thursday before the llvmdev meeting about adding dynamic checking tools into Clang -- IOC for undefined integer behaviors, and SAFECode for memory safety. SAFECode has similar goals to AddressSanitizer, though at least for now it has more checks, but is slower. The main conclusion was that we should have a common

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: I don't get the point of an attribute. There's plenty of code out there that does wide loads like this directly (without them being created by

Dear All, I have the following setup running perfectly OK for a long time CentOS release 5 (Final) sendmail-8.13.8-2.el5 MailScanner 4.76.25 bind-9.3.4-6.0.3.P1.el5_2 now i jus setup a centos box running BackupPC for backing up my my above mail server using ssh as per the instructions in backup pc site i had to enable sshd so i did it and everthing works perfect and backup works great as per my

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

Hello, We've just released the first version of our LLVM-based address sanity checker: AddressSanitizer (http://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/). The tool finds out-of-bound and use-after-free bugs (the subset of bugs detectable by Valgrind/Memcheck); it consists of a LLVM compiler plugin which performs simple code instrumentation and a malloc replacement library. The main advantage of

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 improve the static array bounds checking engine used in SAFECode. It was written after the open project at

On 11/13/12 12:37 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Nov 13, 2012, at 7:52 AM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu> wrote: > >>> John, it was not my intention to disrupt your work in any way. >>> However, branching for release is a bit of a grey area and I >>> have made a judgment call to branch SAFECode in sync with llvm. >>> This could have been a

I just read that LLVM project could be used to do static analysis on C/C++ codes using the analyzer Clang which the front end of LLVM. I wanted to know if it is possible to extract all the accesses to memory(variables, local as well as global) in the source code using LLVM. Is there any inbuilt library present in LLVM which I could use to extract this information. If not please suggest me how to

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 11:49 AM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu>wrote: > 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. >

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

On Nov 13, 2012, at 7:52 AM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu> wrote: >> John, it was not my intention to disrupt your work in any way. >> However, branching for release is a bit of a grey area and I >> have made a judgment call to branch SAFECode in sync with llvm. >> This could have been a bit overzealous but I am used to >> "release at any

On 02/25/2014 04:50 PM, John Criswell wrote: > > I think a more interesting idea would be to use LLVM to perform > instrumentation and then to use Valgrind to instrument third-party > libraries linked into the program. > > What I'm imagining is this: Let's say you instrument a program with > SAFECode or Asan to find memory safety errors. When you run the program >