similar to: [LLVMdev] Where is the SVA code located?

How about state of SVA (Secure Virutal Archtecture)? It seems there is no any demo or prototype produced. Cheers, Liu Jian ---- email to: gjk.liu at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100420/e8dc1b16/attachment.html>

Hi Gregory, I had a similar problem a while back, see: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2010-June/032508.html for my solution to this problem. Basically I ended up linking in the *.o files needed to get exactly what I needed (in your case, the file defining CloneModule and whatever else you need), without pulling in too much (causing duplicate symbol issues with opt). Hopefully this

I thought it would, but it seems to be missing the CloneModule symbol (which isn't called from anywhere in the LLVM codebase). On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 7:43 AM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu>wrote: > On 7/14/11 7:36 PM, Gregory Malecha wrote: > > Hello, > > I have a question about how to set up a Makefile that generate a .so that I > can load into opt

On 7/14/11 7:36 PM, Gregory Malecha wrote: > Hello, > > I have a question about how to set up a Makefile that generate a .so > that I can load into opt without getting duplicate symbols. Here's > what I have right now: Have you tried removing LINK_COMPONENTS below? I suspect that the opt binary already contains everying in the transformUtils library. -- John T. > >

Hello, I have a question about how to set up a Makefile that generate a .so that I can load into opt without getting duplicate symbols. Here's what I have right now: LIBRARYNAME=previrt SHARED_LIBRARY=previrt LINK_COMPONENTS := transformUtils LINK_LIBS_IN_SHARED=1 include $(LEVEL)/Makefile.common LIBS += -lprotobuf CPPFLAGS += -I${HOME}/.root/usr/include -DGOOGLE_PROTOBUF_NO_RTTI LDFLAGS

Hi, Who can recommand me some books about static analysis including systems verification, shape analysis and logic, termination analysis, security and safety, abstract interpretation and algorithms, abstract domain and data structures, pointer analysis, shape analysis, and data flow analysis. I want to read some basic books about the topic, Thank you! With Best Regards to you！ --------------

Hello, I'm interested in the OCaml bindings, but I've been digging through them and it doesn't seem possible to actually write a transformation with them. Specifically, there are a lot of functions to build each type of instruction, but there doesn't seem to be any way to query an llvalue and determine what kind of instruction it is. Is there something that I am missing? Thank

Hi John, On 25 May 2016 at 16:11, John Criswell <jtcriswel at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Pierre, > > Stepping up a level, what is your goal in replacing calls to malloc() and > free()? Is it any different than what SAFECode, SoftBound, or ASan do? > That's a good question. I didn't knew about SoftBound until now, so thank you for the name =). Anyway here is what I

Hello, I'm wondering if anyone had any success (even a small amount) compiling any variant of libc to llvm bitcode? -- gregory malecha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110622/b5fad437/attachment.html>

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Gregory Malecha <gmalecha at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, Hello Gregory, > I'm interested in the OCaml bindings, but I've been digging through them and > it doesn't seem possible to actually write a transformation with them. > Specifically, there are a lot of functions to build each type of > instruction, but there doesn't seem

Hello, I'm working on a project that involves archive files and since llvm-link does not currently support them, I have a simple patch (attached) to add this functionality. It isn't really efficient (it recomputes the set of symbols that need to be linked in after each link), and it probably has some problems with append linkage, but so far it has been enough for me. I'd like to

> I recommend that you stick with the release_19 branch of both llvm and > llvm-poolalloc. I and others are actively using these branches, so > llvm-poolalloc bug fixes will most likely be made to this branch in > addition to mainline CVS for the forseeable future. The release_19 > branch of llvm-poolalloc is designed to always work with the release_19 > branch of LLVM, which

For my application it is important that I get bit code out the other end and I couldn't get the linux linker to link llvm. Is there a way to do this with other tools? I noticed a TODO in the llvm-link.cpp file that said that this should be done so I figured that that would be the right place to do it. 2011/7/30 Rafael Ávila de Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> > On

Tanya M. Lattner wrote: >>I recommend that you stick with the release_19 branch of both llvm and >>llvm-poolalloc. I and others are actively using these branches, so >>llvm-poolalloc bug fixes will most likely be made to this branch in >>addition to mainline CVS for the forseeable future. The release_19 >>branch of llvm-poolalloc is designed to always work with the

On 2011-07-29 16:16, Gregory Malecha wrote: > Hello, > > I'm working on a project that involves archive files and since llvm-link > does not currently support them, I have a simple patch (attached) to add > this functionality. It isn't really efficient (it recomputes the set of > symbols that need to be linked in after each link), and it probably has > some problems

Hi Xi, How did you compile it with clang? I ran into problems: clang -emit-llvm -DPACKAGE_NAME=\"newlib\" -DPACKAGE_TARNAME=\"newlib\" -DPACKAGE_VERSION=\"1.19.0\" -DPACKAGE_STRING=\"newlib\ 1.19.0\" -DPACKAGE_BUGREPORT=\"\" -DPACKAGE_URL=\"\" -I. -DMISSING_SYSCALL_NAMES -fno-builtin -DMISSING_SYSCALL_NAMES -fno-builtin -O2 -c -o

Hi, I ran into a problem when running DSA on Linux kernel (the Kernel version I used is 2.4.31). The analysis was aborted when it tried to do DSNode::mergeTypeInfo on some data structure in the kernel. I have filed a bug report at http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=1656. My question is what version of Linux kernel LLVM has been tested on successfully? To run DSA analysis, should I use the

I am interested in type-based verification of LLVM IR in the areas of certified compilation and software verification. It seems to me that the LLVM IR type system is rather informal in the sense that there is no paper with a proper formalization of the type rules, and for example, a proof of soundness for well-formedness of the code. I would like to know if you are aware of any work in this

Hi Duncan, On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 11:32 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Gregory, > > > I've tried the LTO options with dragonegg, but I haven't had any luck > getting it > > to work, > > details? > I think this is a misunderstanding on my part about what the dragonegg plugin is supposed to do. I am looking for something that will

Dear All, We now have two new mailing lists for SAFECode: 1) svadev: This mailing list is for discussion on SAFECode. Questions and comments about using SAFECode as well as development conversation on SAFECode can go here. 2) sva-commits: This mailing list gets email for all SVN commits made to SAFECode. -- John T.