similar to: [LLVMdev] Walking thru CallGraph bottom up

Hi all, I would like to create a Pass that given an IR instruction walks starting from that instruction up to the main function to identify all the functions call that have been made to call that instruction. Is it possible? What kind of Pass should I create? Thanks Best, Simone Simone Atzeni simone.at at gmail.com +1 (801) 696-8373

Thanks John. I guess I will use a ModulePass, so when I am implementing the “runOnModule” function, do I have to loop through all the functions, for each functions all the BasicBlocks and for each BasicBlock all the instructions or given the Module I have to call the CallGraph directly? Is there an example out there? I can’t find anything. Thanks. Simone > On Feb 24, 2015, at 13:29, John

On 2/25/15 10:51 AM, Simone Atzeni wrote: > Thanks John. > > I guess I will use a ModulePass, so when I am implementing the “runOnModule” function, > do I have to loop through all the functions, for each functions all the BasicBlocks and for each BasicBlock all the instructions If you know the Instruction, you can get it's basic block using Instruction::getParent(), and then get

Dear Simon, Kevin is correct; as far as I can tell, there is no method of getting the functions calling a given function. Instead, you have to start at the main() function and search for the function using a depth-first or breadth-first search. What may make sense is to build a new data structure that has nodes that point from callees to callers once and then use that for your queries.

Hi Simon, > From: Simone Atzeni <simone.at at gmail.com> > To: John Criswell <jtcriswel at gmail.com> > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Walking thru CallGraph bottom up > Message-ID: <318EBA41-2040-4EFE-B330-5813C817C2A2 at gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > I think I got it and the example is

On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 12:15 AM, Herbie Robinson <HerbieRobinson at verizon.net> wrote: > I have been quietly working on a port of LLVM to Stratus VOS. The OS is > always big endian (because customers need to migrate data to new hardware > quickly and can't afford to convert). This entails presenting a big endian > programming model no matter what the hardware does. We

> > On Nov 19, 2016, at 14:09, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > I assume from your description that you are also updating call sites in the same module so that if foo was calling atoi, after cloning you have foo_parallel that is calling atoi_parallel? > If this is the issue, it depends, I’d probably consider turning the available_externally into internal.

I ran into a similar problem a while ago; see https://reviews.llvm.org/D30107 and https://reviews.llvm.org/D33515 .  You get the unusual stack trace because it's trying to call a destructor in shared library which was already unloaded. I thought we had fixed that, but maybe not?  Looking again, it looks like the patch got reverted and I didn't notice. -Eli On 5/14/2018 10:18 PM,

Because what is happening is that if function “atoi” gets cloned I don’t have a definition of “atoi_parallel” therefore I get undefined references when linking. I just want to clone and instrument functions implemented in modules of my program. > On Nov 19, 2016, at 13:54, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > >> On Nov 19, 2016, at 12:44 PM, Simone Atzeni

Hi Guys, We are trying to come up with Bi-Endian(neutral endiness) compiler using the LLVM. For a introduction . http://www.drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/writing-a-bi-endian-compiler/240003090 Did someone from the group ,aware of such project . Thank you ~Umesh

Hi, I am trying to compile LLVM for AARCH (VMA=42), here my cmake command: cmake -G "Ninja" -D SANITIZER_AARCH64_VMA=42 .. But I get the following warning: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CMake Warning: Manually-specified variables were not used by the project: SANITIZER_AARCH64_VMA

> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On Behalf Of Herbie Robinson > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [RFC] [X86] Mov to push transformation in x86-32 call sequences > > On 12/21/14 4:27 AM, Kuperstein, Michael M wrote: > > Which performance guidelines are you referring to? > Table C-21 in "Intel(r) 64 and IA-32 Architectures

That's true for block ciphers, but ChaCha20+poly1305 is a stream cipher. On Wed, 29 Mar 2023, Robinson, Herbie wrote: > > I?m hardly an expert on this, but if I remember correctly, the rekey rate > for good security is mostly dependent on the cipher block size.? I left my > reference books at home; so, I can?t come up with a reference for you, but I > would take Chris?

Which performance guidelines are you referring to? I'm not that familiar with decade-old CPUs, but to the best of my knowledge, this is not true on current hardware. There is one specific circumstance where PUSHes should be avoided - for Atom/Silvermont processors, the memory form of PUSH is inefficient, so the register-freeing optimization below may not be profitable (see 14.3.3.6 and

Ah, with an internal block size [Is that what one calls it?] of 64 bytes. From: Damien Miller <djm at mindrot.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 3:08 PM To: Robinson, Herbie <Herbie.Robinson at stratus.com> Cc: Chris Rapier <rapier at psc.edu>; Christian Weisgerber <naddy at mips.inka.de>; openssh-unix-dev at mindrot.org Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: ChaCha20 Rekey

Thanks Mehdi. My pass clones the functions within a module in order to have the original function and an exact copy of the same function but with a different name, i.e. sum() and sum_parallel(). After my pass I will run ThreadSanitizer instrumentation pass only on the new copy of the functions, i.e. only the “_parallel” functions will be instrumented by tsan. In some programs that I am

It's working with trunk though. Do you think the patch will end up in 6.0.1? Thanks. Simone On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 11:18 AM, Friedman, Eli <efriedma at codeaurora.org> wrote: > I ran into a similar problem a while ago; see https://reviews.llvm.org/ > D30107 and https://reviews.llvm.org/D33515 . You get the unusual stack > trace because it's trying to call a destructor

Hi, as in the subject, is it possible to call on of the analysis pass present in the LLVM (lib/ folder) within a tool pass (tools/ folder)? Thanks. Best, Simone

Hi, not sure if this is the right place, but I am experiencing a problem using clang++ (3.9.1) with Boost Filesystem. I have this simple program: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ #include <iostream> #include <boost/filesystem.hpp> using namespace boost::filesystem; int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { if (argc < 2) { std::cout

Hi all, I was porting my pass from LLVM 4.0 to 6.0 and I am getting a segmentation fault. I was able to obtain only the info below from GDB. I tried to debug with some printf and the runOnFunction runs correctly. Any idea/suggestion about what is going on? The source code of the pass is here: https://github.com/PRUNERS/sword/blob/master/lib/Sword.cpp Any help is much appreciated, Thanks!