similar to: [LLVMdev] Will LLVM be suitable for developing valgrind like tools

Thanks All In fact, to answer Pete, I was trying to do as much as possible like valgrind including as much as possible, which includes all tools. M very elated to know about ASan, given the fact that LLVM is Compile time whereas valgrind is Dynamic, need to rethink, Can you guys check this. build clang 3.2 but I got this linker error. Let me also examine closely clang++ -W -Wall

Turns out compiler-rt was missing as pointed out by Kostya. Any clue why line number is not printed, It got compiled with -g -O1 along with flags specified in the link I got following lines on RHEL 6.3 clang 3.2 ==10474== ERROR: AddressSanitizer: heap-use-after-free on address 0x7fb3eb2c6b90 at pc 0x415394 bp 0x7fff49175eb0 sp 0x7fff49175ea8 READ of size 4 at 0x7fb3eb2c6b90 thread T0 #0

Did you checkout compiler-rt? This page has detailed info on building asan: http://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/wiki/HowToBuild?tm=4 --kcc On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 9:38 PM, Devchandra L Meetei <dlmeetei at gmail.com>wrote: > Thanks All > In fact, to answer Pete, I was trying to do as much as possible like > valgrind including as much as possible, which includes all tools.

Won't it be http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/tags/RELEASE_31/final/ On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Pankaj Gode <godepankaj at yahoo.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > I was checking for GIT or SVN versions corresponding to llvm3.1 release by > checking svn and git logs, but failed to find the exact match. > > I checked with r156747, which is the last version it shows

Hi All, I was checking for GIT or SVN versions corresponding to llvm3.1 release by checking svn and git logs, but failed to find the exact match. I checked with r156747, which is the last version it shows in      http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/tags/RELEASE_31/ but when I 'diff' this with the 'downloaded llvm3.1 release'(http://llvm.org/releases/download.html#3.1), then I

Hi All Will LLVM be suitable for developing valgrind like tools --Regards --Dev -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130107/ab5ef642/attachment.html>

Seems that Vijay is asking about converting C program to LLVM IR On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:26 PM, Eli Bendersky <eliben at google.com> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 9:02 AM, Vijay Daultani <vijay.daultani at gmail.com>wrote: > >> Respected Sir/Madam, >> >> As I was developing some part of compiler for a project. I require grammar >>

> Will LLVM be suitable for developing valgrind like tools It is already used by several such tools, eg ASAN, klee. Ciao, Duncan.

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: I don't get the point of an attribute. There's plenty of code out there that does wide loads like this directly (without them being created by

Hello, We've just released the first version of our LLVM-based address sanity checker: AddressSanitizer (http://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/). The tool finds out-of-bound and use-after-free bugs (the subset of bugs detectable by Valgrind/Memcheck); it consists of a LLVM compiler plugin which performs simple code instrumentation and a malloc replacement library. The main advantage of

I always though the /tags/RELEASE_xx/final branch would hold the final, released tarball contents, but this does not appear to be the case, at least not for 3.1. I can confirm that diffing /tags/RELEASE_31/final and the 3.1 tarball shows some non-trivial changes. The 3.2 release seems to be okay though; the diff only shows changes in the last-modified timestamps in the HTML docs. Though I just

Hello again, The tool we announced 1.5 months ago has matured quite a bit. In addition to heap out-of-bound and use-after-free bugs it also finds stack overruns/underruns. AddressSanitizer is being actively used by the Chromium developers and already found over 20 bugs: http://blog.chromium.org/2011/06/testing-chromium-addresssanitizer-fast.html Question to the LLVM developers: would you

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, >

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

On Jun 16, 2011, at 1:27 AM, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > Hello again, > > The tool we announced 1.5 months ago has matured quite a bit. > In addition to heap out-of-bound and use-after-free bugs it also finds stack overruns/underruns. > AddressSanitizer is being actively used by the Chromium developers and already found over 20 bugs:

I am trying to do a classic R -d valgrind --vanilla < mypkg-Ex.R as described in http://cs.swan.ac.uk/~csoliver/ok-sat-library/internet_html/doc/doc/R/2.9.1/doc/manual/R-exts.html#Using-valgrind The problem is valgrind crashes imediately. I am using Ubuntu 10.04 LST (actually Biolinux) on a 64bit Dell Precision laptop with 4 core-i5 Intel processors. I have R-2-15-0 installed from source

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.

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 Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jun 16, 2011, at 1:27 AM, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > > Hello again, > > The tool we announced 1.5 months ago has matured quite a bit. > In addition to heap out-of-bound and use-after-free bugs it also finds > stack overruns/underruns. > AddressSanitizer is being actively used by

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 Valgrind/Memcheck not covered by AddressSanitizer). It will also find use-after-destruction-but-before-free in C++. The algorithm of the tool is similar to that of Memcheck (