similar to: [LLVMdev] Can we require CFI instructions now?

>> Currently the only two targets that disable CFI are Hexagon and >> powerpc targeting BGP. Is that still correct? >> >> The current integrated assembler is working for PPC, no? > > Yes, and regardless, as far as I'm concerned, the BG/P is now dead. Cool. I have changed the BG/P in r203269. What about hexagon. Do we still need to avoid cfi instructions with it?

In the Hexagon backend we originally treated CFI instructions as "solo", > i.e. they could not be packetized with any other instruction. Now we > simply delay the generation of these instructions until after > packetization. The reason for this is that two instructions that could be > packetized together were not packetized together if there was an CFI > instruction in

On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Sebastian Pop <spop at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Tony Linthicum <tlinth at codeaurora.org> wrote: >> On 7/3/2012 5:01 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>>> (4) llc -march=hexagon test.ll -o test.s >>>> >>>> '' is not a recognized

On 7/3/2012 5:01 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi, > >> (4) llc -march=hexagon test.ll -o test.s >> >> '' is not a recognized processor for this target (ignoring processor) >> 0 llc 0x08c2512b >> Stack dump: >> 0. Program arguments: llc -march=hexagon test.ll -o test.s >> 1. Running pass 'Function Pass Manager' on module

Hi, On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Tony Linthicum <tlinth at codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 7/3/2012 5:01 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: >> Hi, >> >>> (4) llc -march=hexagon test.ll -o test.s >>> >>> '' is not a recognized processor for this target (ignoring processor) >>> 0 llc 0x08c2512b >>> Stack dump: >>> 0. Program

Hi Sebastian, On 19/07/12 05:57, Sebastian Pop wrote: > On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Sebastian Pop <spop at codeaurora.org> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Tony Linthicum <tlinth at codeaurora.org> wrote: >>> On 7/3/2012 5:01 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>>> (4) llc -march=hexagon

Hello all, We would like to contribute a new backend for Qualcomm's Hexagon processor. We will actively maintain the port once it is accepted. Hexagon is a VLIW core that is used principally in modem and low power audio applications in Qualcomm's chip sets. We have a patch for both llvm and for clang. As this is a new port, these patches are quite large (approximately 26k and 3k

On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Tony Linthicum <tlinth at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Hello all, > > We would like to contribute a new backend for Qualcomm's Hexagon > processor.  We will actively maintain the port once it is accepted. > Hexagon is a VLIW core that is used principally in modem and low power > audio applications in Qualcomm's chip sets. > > We

2015-09-01 11:38 GMT+08:00 John Criswell <jtcriswel at gmail.com>: > On 8/31/15 10:43 PM, 慕冬亮 via llvm-dev wrote: > > I want to create an experiment to show the effectiveness of cfi : > For example , > I first need a program with vulnerability so that we can hijack its > control flow; > > then I enforce cfi of llvm and we can't hijack its control flow. > >

Hi, I would like to propose extending the Control-Flow Integrity (CFI) mechanism in LLVM/Clang with a feature that allows users to explicitly link classes that have no inheritance link. Usually, if one class is used at locations in code where this class is not expected, this will create a CFI error at runtime, assuming the application is built with CFI enabled. However, in cases where the user

Hi Eli, On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Tony Linthicum <tlinth at codeaurora.org> wrote: >> Hey folks, >> >> We are having some difficulty with how we have been representing our >> predicate registers, and wanted some advice from the list.  First, we >> had been

Hi Rafael, I've been staring at the CFI directives and have a question. Some background: I want to generate the compact unwind information using just the CFI directives. I *think* that this should be doable. The issue I'm facing right now is that I need to know how much the stack pointer was adjusted. So when I have something like this: .cfi_startproc Lfunc_begin175:

Hi, this is a proposal for the implementation of CFI-icall [1] with ThinLTO. Jumptables are generated in the merged module. To generate a jumptable, we need a list of functions with !type annotations, including (in non-cross-dso mode) external functions. Unfortunately, LLVM IR does not preserve unused function declarations, and we don’t want to copy the actual function bodies to the merged

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 6:44 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > Thanks for sending this out. A few comments below. > > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 5:17 PM, Evgenii Stepanov via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> this is a proposal for the implementation of CFI-icall [1] with ThinLTO. >> >>

Hi Kostya, Please find attached the minimized motivation test. I hope it is minimized enough. If not please let me know so I can try to make it more minimal. Were you expecting something like this? Also I think the tests that I should provide along with the patch should be in a special format right? I think I should be looking at http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#test-cases, and

-krasin@ On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:39 PM, Enes Göktaş <enes.goktas at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Kostya, >> >> Please find attached the minimized motivation test. >> I hope it is minimized enough. If not please let me know so I can try to >> make it more

On 5 September 2013 19:27, Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Rafael, > > I've been staring at the CFI directives and have a question. Some background: I want to generate the compact unwind information using just the CFI directives. I *think* that this should be doable. The issue I'm facing right now is that I need to know how much the stack pointer was

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Evgenii Stepanov <eugeni.stepanov at gmail.com > wrote: > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Evgenii Stepanov > <eugeni.stepanov at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 6:44 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> > wrote: > >> Thanks for sending this out. A few comments below. > >> > >> On

Hi, I’m working on setting up ThinLTO+CFI for a C application which uses a lot of function pointers. While functionally it appears stable, it’s performance is significantly degraded, to the tune of double digit percentage points compared to regular LTO+CFI. Looking into possible causes I see that under ThinLTO+CFI iCall type checks almost always generate jump table entries for indirect calls,

I watched Teresa’s talk on ThinLTO from last year’s CppCon, and it sounded like adding global variable information to the summaries was in the works, or at least in planning. Can someone (Teresa?) please share the current status? If it’s part of future plans, are there any specific proposals that can be picked up and worked on? Thanks! > On Apr 9, 2018, at 6:51 PM, via llvm-dev <llvm-dev