similar to: [LLVMdev] Fwd: LLVMdev Digest, Vol 88, Issue 34

Ok, based on the responses on this thread I'm going to change my plan a bit. I didn't expect that that many people were using the existing set up. I still want to deprecate the current sample setup which is intimately tied in with LLVM's own build system (so that we are more free to make changes to how the project itself builds). However, I will plan on doing this by refactoring the

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Anna Zaks <ganna at apple.com> wrote: > On Oct 11, 2011, at 3:02 PM, Daniel Dunbar wrote: >> If the community thinks this is an important problem for LLVM to >> address, then I think the ideal solution is that we provide a set of >> autoconf/makefile/whatever foo that uses llvm-config and so on, but >> doesn't try and do things

On 18/02/2015 23:29, Alexey Samsonov wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Anna Zaks <ganna at apple.com <mailto:ganna at apple.com>> wrote: > > >> On Feb 17, 2015, at 4:00 PM, Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com <mailto:vonosmas at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Anna Zaks <ganna at

> On Jul 1, 2016, at 12:10 PM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov at google.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 8:53 PM, Anna Zaks <ganna at apple.com> wrote: >> Hi Sanitizer Runtime Developers, >> >> We recently ran into a problem building clang because some of the >> definitions in sanitizer_common conflicted with system definitions and later >>

> On Feb 17, 2015, at 4:00 PM, Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Anna Zaks <ganna at apple.com <mailto:ganna at apple.com>> wrote: > Unfortunately, we do rely on the Autotools to build for darwin. > > The lack of proper testing is very unfortunate. In the future, we will either drop the dependency on

On Oct 11, 2011, at 3:02 PM, Daniel Dunbar wrote: > If the community thinks this is an important problem for LLVM to > address, then I think the ideal solution is that we provide a set of > autoconf/makefile/whatever foo that uses llvm-config and so on, but > doesn't try and do things like include the LLVM Makefiles or the LLVM > autoconf files. This would also provide a

Dear Duncan, thank you very much. I have been able to use it now, via the following command line: clang -emit-llvm -c -fstack-protector canary.c -o canary.bc llc -print-before=stack-protector -print-after=stack-protector -o canary.s < canary.bc Thank you again, Izabela Maffra. On 26 January 2013 15:55, <llvmdev-request at cs.uiuc.edu> wrote: > Send LLVMdev mailing

Hi Sanitizer Runtime Developers, We recently ran into a problem building clang because some of the definitions in sanitizer_common conflicted with system definitions and later another system header was trying to use the system definition: .../usr/include/libkern/OSAtomicDeprecated.h:756:17: error: reference to 'memory_order_relaxed' is ambiguous __theAmount, memory_order_relaxed) +

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 11:05 AM, David Blaikie via cfe-dev < cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Anna Zaks <ganna at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Feb 28, 2016, at 7:57 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Anna Zaks <ganna at

> On Mar 11, 2015, at 2:14 AM, Vassil Vassilev <vvasilev at cern.ch> wrote: > > On 10/03/15 19:13, Anna Zaks wrote: >> >>> On Mar 10, 2015, at 1:03 AM, Vassil Vassilev <vvasilev at cern.ch <mailto:vvasilev at cern.ch>> wrote: >>> >>> On 09/03/15 21:52, Anna Zaks wrote: >>>> >>>> +Easily, some of the code

Unfortunately, we do rely on the Autotools to build for darwin. The lack of proper testing is very unfortunate. In the future, we will either drop the dependency on Makefile/autoconf build or add the support for sanitizer testing. Anna. > On Feb 17, 2015, at 10:54 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > > +1 (in case you still need mine) > > On Thu, Feb 12,

I cleaned up the indentation in the three patches and attached them. Please let me know if there are other issues. The patches should all apply cleanly with the latest revision. I will wait with submitting more patches until the MCJITSTreamer has been reviewed and checked in. Thanks, Jan --- On Sat, 8/21/10, Bruno Cardoso Lopes <bruno.cardoso at gmail.com> wrote: From: Bruno Cardoso

Daniel,   Thanks for the reference to SPIM. It looks interesting, but appears to be an assembler that can also execute the code (it does not execute binary files). In addition, I'm probably asking for too much. Ideally, I'm looking for something like MS Visual Studio with that executes on a virtual software machine, whose source code is freely available.   Thanks, M. McDonnell --- On

John, Thanks for making the results of the analyzer available. Ted has recently added IPA support for C++, so the number of bugs reported increased dramatically. In some cases our diagnostic clarity is still lagging behind for C++ bugs that span multiple functions (it's WIP). Cheers, Anna. On Jul 3, 2012, at 10:06 AM, John Smith wrote: > Hi, > > > Just for fun, I decided to

> On Feb 28, 2016, at 7:57 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Anna Zaks <ganna at apple.com <mailto:ganna at apple.com>> wrote: > >> On Feb 26, 2016, at 2:10 PM, Alexey Samsonov via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >>

I think libfuzzer deserves its own flag. I view fuzzing as a smarter testing technology while sanitizers are associated with inserting additional checks into the program. The different linking behavior is another major difference. Anna. > On Apr 27, 2017, at 4:08 PM, Kostya Serebryany via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > on the one hand, -fsanitize=fuzzer might

I was delayed creating the smaller patches, but finally I had some time to put the first set together. There are three small patches, the first two are classes the MCJITStreamer uses, and the last patch is the MCJITStreamer class itself. - Jan --- On Sun, 8/1/10, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > From: Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev]

Hi John, I knew I would hear from you. :) On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:38 PM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu> wrote: > On 10/11/11 3:24 PM, Daniel Dunbar wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I would like to deprecate the LLVM project's "official" support of >> setting up the Makefiles / autoconf configurations in such a way that >> external

> On Mar 10, 2015, at 1:03 AM, Vassil Vassilev <vvasilev at cern.ch> wrote: > > On 09/03/15 21:52, Anna Zaks wrote: >> >> +Easily, some of the code snippets end up being copied dozens of >> +times, which leads to worse maintainability, understandability and logical >> +design. > Should be better now. >> >> The project description stresses

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Daniel Dunbar" <daniel at zuster.org> > To: "Renato Golin" <renato.golin at linaro.org> > Cc: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "Marshall Clow" <mclow.lists at gmail.com>, "LLVM Dev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 12:30:12 PM > Subject: Re: