similar to: [LLVMdev] Status of llvm-ld

On Mar 30, 2011, at 11:08 AM, David Sehr wrote: > All, > > As a part of the PNaCl project we're doing some investigations into how we do linking, and have started looking at llvm-ld. Several of us have heard that this tool is no longer supported. Could someone please clarify? Hi David, It is supported and in use by many projects. Most people who care about LTO have switched to

Hi In my previous mail I mentioned the project on KCoFI( the control FLow integrity methods for commodity hardware http://sva.cs.illinois.edu/pubs/KCoFI-Oakland-2014.pdf ). Will it be more helpful to the community if I do the improvements number #1 and #3 mentioned in my previous mail to the mailing list or if i try to port it to arm architecture? I have decided to go ahead with the improvements

Hi I want to pursue a project based to improve the existing KCoFI method which is the Control Flow integrity method for commodity os. Since KCoFI is a llvm based project I plan to undertake the project to improve the existing KCoFI method. Following are the improvements that I want to pursue: 1. To improve the call graph used in KCoFI. Implement a stronger call graph. 2. Port the KCoFI to

All, I should have chimed in earlier, but have been working on two more side-channel variants of this conversation. At the beginning the PNaCl team was strongly pushing for trying to keep platform ABI compatibility on all platforms while taking one portable bitcode stream as input. During the discussions we've had over the past few weeks it became obvious that that is simply not tractable,

> > Just in case it gets lost in my longer reply, I want to emphasize that if > these will be used to simplify the in-tree backends and those backend > maintainers are on board, then I am *totally* in favor of this going into > the tree. My concerns are heavily based on the fact that as proposed, none > of that seems likely to happen. > > > Framing the problem

On 5 October 2011 01:19, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > I'm not sure what you're getting at here.  My email was not intended to say that I'm not interested in LLVM improving - quite the contrary.  My email was to rebut Dan's implicit claim that PNaCL and using LLVM as a portable IR is never going to work.  I'm arguing in the "opencl" and

Hello, [The first paragraph is safe to skip if you already know what PNaCl is.] The Portable Native Client (PNaCl) project is a toolchain for producing portable bitcode from C and C++ code and running in securely and efficiently on the web via Native Client. For more details see this presentation from the last Google I/O: https://developers.google.com/events/io/sessions/325679543and

Hi Eli, Recently, I proposed some changes to LLVM to do more lowering of illegal types (like i128 or i17) and other things within the LLVM IR layer, and the proposal was roundly rejected by the LLVM community: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2013-April/061567.html PNaCl is essentially doing what my proposal described. How do you expect to reconcile the community's desire to avoid

On 2013-07-30 22:11, Eli Bendersky wrote: > we've published an initial version of the PNaCl bitcode reference > manual online - > http://www.chromium.org/nativeclient/pnacl/bitcode-abi. The PNaCl > bitcode is a restricted subset of LLVM IR. > > Any comments would be most welcome. Hi Eli, I appreciate you for opening the process for input and comments. One question stood

Hello, Following an earlier email ( http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2013-June/063010.html), we've published an initial version of the PNaCl bitcode reference manual online - http://www.chromium.org/nativeclient/pnacl/bitcode-abi. The PNaCl bitcode is a restricted subset of LLVM IR. The reference manual is quite terse, so for the bigger picture I'll repost links to the design

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>wrote: > On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Mark Seaborn <mseaborn at chromium.org>wrote: > >> The PNaCl project has implemented various IR simplification passes that >> simplify LLVM IR by lowering complex features to simpler features. We'd >> like to upstream some of these IR passes

From the provided documentation I understood that in memory data structures of a PNaCl program are incompatible to the host program because ABIs are different (e.g. PNaCl pointers are always 32-bit even when running on x86_64 platform). So PNaCl program can't access any data structures of the host program directly. The only communication way is by using syscalls, but the document does not

> From the provided documentation I understood that in memory data > structures of a PNaCl program are incompatible to the host program because > ABIs are different (e.g. PNaCl pointers are always 32-bit even when running > on x86_64 platform). > So PNaCl program can't access any data structures of the host program > directly. The only communication way is by using syscalls,

Am 19.06.2013 18:01, schrieb JF Bastien: > > From the provided documentation I understood that in memory data > structures of a PNaCl program are incompatible to the host program > because ABIs are different (e.g. PNaCl pointers are always 32-bit > even when running on x86_64 platform). > So PNaCl program can't access any data structures of the host >

Hi all, BitstreamReader is the only in-tree client of the DataStreamer and MemoryObject interfaces. In practice when using user-facing LLVM tools, the bitcode will normally either be in memory or in a file, so the best way to access it is through memory, either directly or memory mapped. As part of some refactorings I am making to BitstreamReader, I would like to simplify it by changing it to

On Oct 4, 2011, at 4:42 PM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 5 October 2011 00:19, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: >> 1. The native client folks trying to use LLVM IR as a portable representation that abstracts arbitrary C calling conventions. This doesn't work because the frontend has to know the C calling conventions of the target. > (...) >> 2. The OpenCL folks

And on a separate thread [0] Derek indicated he'd be fine with removing it. I'll leave this thread open until end of Monday to receive any other opinions, then proceed to remove it. Peter [0] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20161024/400754.html On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > Hi all, > >

Is it possible to use PNaCl infrastructure (i.e. translation and execution in a sandbox) without a Chrome ? I mean a something like a standalone VM like Java or Mono/C#. Dmitri Am 18.06.2013 17:22, schrieb Eli Bendersky: > Hello, > > [The first paragraph is safe to skip if you already know what PNaCl is.] > The Portable Native Client (PNaCl) project is a toolchain for producing

On 18 June 2013 15:27, Dmitri Rubinstein <dmitri.rubinstein at googlemail.com>wrote: > Is it possible to use PNaCl infrastructure (i.e. translation and execution > in a sandbox) without a Chrome ? > > I mean a something like a standalone VM like Java or Mono/C#. > Yes. The NaCl tool 'sel_ldr' will run a program inside a sandbox outside of the web browser. We do a

Awesome! Thanks, Rafael On 28 October 2016 at 13:14, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > And on a separate thread [0] Derek indicated he'd be fine with removing it. > I'll leave this thread open until end of Monday to receive any other > opinions, then proceed to remove it. > > Peter > > [0] >