similar to: [LLVMdev] Stack protector performance

If you compile this with optimizations, then the 'canary()' function should be totally inlined into the 'main()' function. In that case, the cost of the stack protectors will be very small compared to the loop. -bw On Mar 9, 2012, at 2:52 AM, Job Noorman <jobnoorman at gmail.com> wrote: > I have a question about the performance of the implementation of the stack >

Hi Guys, I am an absolute newbie to the compiler community. I am experimenting a little bit with llvm. I have a few small questions, i would be really great if someone could help me. 1. Can i find out (is there something already built), if the previous instruction / or some instruction was a cache miss. Basically i want to detect cache misses and instructions that are causing this 2. Can i find

Ketan Pundlik Umare wrote: > Hi Guys, > I am an absolute newbie to the compiler community. I am experimenting a little bit with llvm. > I have a few small questions, i would be really great if someone could help me. It sounds like what you want is valgrind --tool=cachegrind (or --tool=callgrind). See http://valgrind.org/ > 1. Can i find out (is there something already built), if the

Hello, I plan to implement "Stack Smashing Protection - Strong" support in LLVM. Below is a description of this feature and an overview of the implementation plan. I have divided up the implementation into stages that can be delivered incrementally. I'm looking for any feedback (suggestions, requests, etc) before I actually begin the work. Thank you! Josh

Hi, I want to run a HVM domU. I have a Dell Optiplex 755: model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E4500 @ 2.20GHz I have enabled VT in BIOS settings under performance. However, after I boot into a linux kernel (not under Xen), grep vmx /proc/cpuinfo returns nothing. When I boot under Xen, I get (XEN) Intel VT-d has been enabled (XEN) [VT-D]iommu.c:1700: Queued Invalidation hardware not

On 10/1/12 9:26 PM, Magee, Josh wrote: > Hello, > > I plan to implement "Stack Smashing Protection - Strong" support in LLVM. > Below is a description of this feature and an overview of the implementation > plan. I have divided up the implementation into stages that can be delivered > incrementally. > > I'm looking for any feedback (suggestions, requests,

From: Rodrigo Barbosa <rodrigob at suespammers.org> > Btw, don't quote me on this one :) > I'm only 90% sure of the hotswapping capabilities, and less than 50% > sure about the price :) There _are_ systems with hot-swap CPUs, memory and/or, PCI[-X] slots. They are _not_ commodity and pricey, and require OS-level support. In fact, I believe Linux 2.6 has some support for

Hello everybody, I am looking for a tool (in Linux or Windows) that allow me to get performance measures like cycle execution, cache accesses, etc. for an x86 architecture. I want to estimate the performance overhead due to the modification that I do using LLVM. Any suggestion is welcome. Thanks in advance, -- Juan Carlos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was

Hi, For the last day or two I having been trying to get Valgrind/Callgrind 3.6.1 to work on Centos Linux 5.5 using a simple Fibonacci C++ program(shown below). After compiling the program using g++ -g -o MatchUpAccurate MatchUpAccurate.cpp, we run: /home/frankc/DQTTest/valgrind-3.6.1/coregrind/valgrind --tool=callgrind --dump-instr=yes --simulate-cache=yes --collect-jumps=yes

You mean 'cachegrind'? http://valgrind.org/info/tools.html#cachegrind I don't know any public tool better than this (but someone please tell me if I am misinformed). - Daniel On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Juan Carlos Martinez Santos<juanc.martinez.santos at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello everybody, > > I am looking for a tool (in Linux or Windows) that allow me to get

Olly Betts <olly at survex.com> wrote: > The report you show seems to be just the time take by each function > directly rather than including functions it calls. It looks like a lot > of the time is spent in cursor movement, as totalling up things that > seem like they'd be due to that I quickly get to 40+% but it's hard > to tell if that's about the actual total

Hi everyone, As a front-end developer, I'd like to add a language-specific information at a fixed location of each stack frame. The reason is that I want to retrieve this information when dynamically walking the stack. For example, X86 has the following stack layout for a function with two arguments and two locals: 12(%ebp) - second function parameter 8(%ebp) - first function

Dear all, I posted this problem sometime back on 0.9.26 (http://www.winehq.com/pipermail/wine-users/2006-December/024086.html). I thought the problem was fixed, but it seemed not. >From 0.9.26 all the way to the latest 0.9.30, I've been seeing this problem on my system (Linux flying 2.6.17-11-generic #2 SMP Thu Feb 1 19:52:28 UTC 2007 i686 GNU/Linux; Ubuntu Edgy installed, but running

-------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: John Criswell <criswell at cs.uiuc.edu> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] A simulation tool Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 17:23:34 -0500 Size: 2903 URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090901/c1e167ca/attachment.eml>

Hi all, I want to implement the Xor random canary, so I have to get the return address in the prologue and epilogue of the function. In the prologue of the function, before I insert into the canary on the stack, I can get the return address by: ConstantInt* ci = llvm::ConstantInt::get(Type::getInt32Ty(RI->getContext()), 0); Value* Args1[] = {ci}; CallInst* callInst =

? ? Hello ? I need urgent help : ? In my previous system configuration with ubuntu 10.04 the program phase-6 ( a learning program for vocabulary) ran without problems under wine. ? Today a did an upgrade to ubuntu 10.10 with wine 1.3.12. ? Since the upgrade the program phase-6 can't open his window and nothing happens (only the registration of the license is working). I tried some

I have noticed that dragonegg sometimes allocates stack objects in a different order than they were declared in the source file. I experienced this behavior when compiling RIPE (https://github.com/johnwilander/RIPE) in the function perform_attack. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to reproduce this in a minimal example. (Note that when compiling RIPE with GCC, the order of stack

Hi all, I am master student in Edinburgh, UK. I am doing my MSc project with LLVM compiler and I have to modify LLVM to implement the StackGuard with a XOR random Canary. However, I am not familiar with LLVM. My problem is that I want to XOR the random canary word with the return address which are both 32 bits. I found a method called SimplifyXorInst(Value *, Value *, const TargetData

Dear LLVMers, I am trying to measure the performance overhead (if any) of the canaries that clang inserts in the code. I would like to do this automatically, using the LLVM test infra-structure. However, I am not sure if that is possible. Could someone tell me which flags in the TEST.nightly.Makefile script, (or any other script) I must change to have this done? Usually I insert canaries with

People, Anybody knows what mean this message in my CLI: [Apr 1 16:58:34] WARNING[3845]: asterisk.c:3050 canary_thread: The canary is no more. He has ceased to be! He's expired and gone to meet his maker! He's a stiff! Bereft of life, he rests in peace. His metabolic processes are now history! He's off the twig! He's kicked the bucket. He's shuffled off his mortal