similar to: [LLVMdev] MemorySanitizer, a tool that finds uninitialized reads and more

I've just sent a code review request to llvm-commits. --kcc On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > Hello llvmdev, > > I would like to propose and discuss yet another dynamic tool, which we > call MemorySanitizer (msan). > The main goal of the tool is to detect uses of uninitialized memory (the > major feature of

Hi again, MemorySanitizer (msan) is now mature enough to bootstrap LLVM and run it w/o any additional tools. Msan has already found one bug in LLVM itself: http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=13929 Would anyone be willing to do a codereview (it was sent to llvm-commits: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.llvm.cvs/123253) Thanks, --kcc On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Kostya

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 06:44:57PM +0400, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de > > wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 05:52:49PM +0400, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger < > > joerg at britannica.bec.de > > > > wrote: > >

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de > wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 05:52:49PM +0400, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger < > joerg at britannica.bec.de > > > wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 05:19:11PM +0400, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > > > >

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 05:52:49PM +0400, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de > > wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 05:19:11PM +0400, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger < > > joerg at britannica.bec.de > > > > wrote: > >

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de > wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 05:19:11PM +0400, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger < > joerg at britannica.bec.de > > > wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 02:39:34PM +0400, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > > > >

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 05:19:11PM +0400, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de > > wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 02:39:34PM +0400, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > > > Another difference from Memcheck is that we propose to use 8 shadow bits > > > per byte of application memory and use a

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de > wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 02:39:34PM +0400, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > > Another difference from Memcheck is that we propose to use 8 shadow bits > > per byte of application memory and use a > > direct shadow mapping (for 64-bit linux that is just clearing 46-th bit > of >

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 02:39:34PM +0400, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > Another difference from Memcheck is that we propose to use 8 shadow bits > per byte of application memory and use a > direct shadow mapping (for 64-bit linux that is just clearing 46-th bit of > the application memory address). > This greatly simplifies the instrumentation code and avoids races on shadow >

On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > 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: > > Hi Duncan, >

Hi Kostya, > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr > <mailto:baldrick at free.fr>> wrote: > > 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

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 8:25 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Just moving this branch of the thread out of the review because I don't >> want to derail the review thread... >> >> Kostya - why are these two cases not optimization bugs in

I think I am using objects according to the man page. This seems to be a valid regular expression. But whether I know what I'm doing or no, it still shouldn't be doing what valgrind seems to be saying it's doing. (IMHO) ---------- start of script ---------- Script started on Mon 01 Aug 2005 02:09:00 PM PDT linux$ printenv VALGRIND_OPTS --tool=3Dmemcheck linux$ cat bar.R foo <- 1

valgrind complains about the save command in R 2.3.1 as shown by the script included below. Of course, I don't know whether this "Conditional jump or move depends on uninitialised value(s)" is really a bug. Experience with similar issues in my own code says it may be, but it is also hard to tell. Having no familiarity with the code cited in deflate.c, I leave the issue to experts.

On Friday, July 31, 2015 07:50 AM, Hans Wennborg wrote: > Dear testers, > > 3.7.0-rc2 was just tagged. Please test, build binaries, upload to the > sftp, and report results to this thread. LNT is looking good on Ubuntu 14.04 x64, uploaded: clang+llvm-3.7.0-rc2-x86_64-linux-gnu-ubuntu-14.04.tar.xz The errors reported during build are: Failing Tests (17):

Hi LLVM people, Not sure whether this is the best place to ask this. Given the source of a program, I would like to detect both uninitialized reads and out-of-bounds memory accesses. The latter can be done with the Address Sanitizer (ASan) and the first using the Memory Sanitizer (MSan). Is there a way to use both at the same time? The --fsanitize option only seems support one of these. What is

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 8:25 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > Just moving this branch of the thread out of the review because I don't > want to derail the review thread... > > Kostya - why are these two cases not optimization bugs in general? (why do > they only affect sanitizers?) > The recent case from mozilla (

Just moving this branch of the thread out of the review because I don't want to derail the review thread... Kostya - why are these two cases not optimization bugs in general? (why do they only affect sanitizers?) On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 8:37 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > And we've been just informed by the mozilla folks about yet another case > of

----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Blaikie" <dblaikie at gmail.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Kostya Serebryany" <kcc at google.com>, "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 12:19:46 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Curiosity about transform

My $0.02 - I'm not sure the transformation introduces a data race. To the best of my understanding, the point of the C++11/C11 memory model is to allow a wide array of compiler transformations - including speculative loads - for non-atomic variables. I believe what's most likely happening (without looking at the Mozilla source) is that the original program contains a C++ data race, and