similar to: how to monitor read operation to special memory blocks?

Ask a simple question : I svn checkout compiler-rt in llvm/project. And I compile llvm through cmake. How can I make for all those testing files? make test? - mudongliang 2015-09-02 0:58 GMT+08:00 Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com>: > Take a look at > > clang.llvm.org/docs/ControlFlowIntegrityDesign.html > clang.llvm.org/docs/ControlFlowIntegrity.html > > And the

2015-11-30 12:58 GMT+08:00 Chris Bieneman <beanz at apple.com>: > The autotools build system is officially deprecated and will be removed in a > future release. > > CMake is the recommended configuration system, but it is only a > configuration system. It generates build files for multiple different build > systems. One of the most popular build systems is Ninja. You cannot

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. Do you have any advice for me? - mudongliang -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

I want to transform elf binary to llvm IR, and do some instrumentation based on llvm. Is there any tool which can do the transformation? Thanks in advance. - mudongliang -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150717/abee5f23/attachment.html>

When I see one book about llvm and choose the building method between autotools, cmake, and ninja building methods, I was confused. Is there any link about this content? Thanks for reply. -- My best regards to you. No System Is Safe! mudongliang

2015-12-01 1:20 GMT+08:00 Chris Bieneman <beanz at apple.com>: > > On Nov 29, 2015, at 9:09 PM, 慕冬亮 <mudongliangabcd at gmail.com> wrote: > > 2015-11-30 12:58 GMT+08:00 Chris Bieneman <beanz at apple.com>: > > The autotools build system is officially deprecated and will be removed in a > future release. > > CMake is the recommended configuration system,

2015-08-29 14:45 GMT+08:00 Martell Malone <martellmalone at gmail.com>: > Why are there two ways to compile LLVM? >> make and cmake! >> What's the difference of those two ways? > > > make and cmake are used together not separately. > cmake is a high level generator that creates a makefile for make > > I compile llvm according to this website(

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. > >

First you should learn how to write a pass and then a MachineFunctionPass. >From LLVM website, you can refer to http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html And for outside pass, you can refer to http://adriansampson.net/blog/llvm.html It's a great article. And the author put the source code on Github <https://github.com/sampsyo/llvm-pass-skeleton>. 2016-03-01 14:36 GMT+08:00

For every level of translation [in terms of "human readable -> machine code translation", not someone translating a literary work from one language to another - although often some subtle details are lost here too], a little bit of the semantic meaning is lost. This means that you can almost never completely reconstruct the code in original form from the machine-code, or the C-code

Hello everyone, I have written simple LLVM passes, but I cannot able to write a MachineFunctionPass pass. I am following the steps form the following link but it is not working: http://www.gabriel.urdhr.fr/2014/09/26/adding-a-llvm-pass/ Please share the sample MachineFunctionPass code or steps to follow to write MachineFunctionPass. Thanks, Bala -- Thanks, Bala IIITA Allahabad --------------

All, I would like to submit the attached patch, which allows the GHC (Glasgow Haskell Compiler) calling convention to work on ARM targets. Could some nice person please review this code, so I can move towards getting it committed? I have thoroughly tested this patch again GHC on a Debian-ARM (armel) system. Unfortunately my understanding of LLVM is limited, so it's likely I'm not

Hi Renato, I fully agree with you, but indexed load and store is the next step. I'm asking to review gather and scatter code. Thanks. - Elena -----Original Message----- From: Renato Golin [mailto:renato.golin at linaro.org] Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 17:17 To: Demikhovsky, Elena Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu; Chandler Carruth; James Molloy Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Code review for gather

Hi Steve, I'm not an LLVM developer but am the author/maintainer of the LLVM backend in GHC. The patch looks mostly good to me (although I am not that familiar with ARM so could easily have missed something). My main concern is why are you avoiding using the R0 - R3 registers? Also, could you please update me on the status of this work. I assume you are getting GHC running in registerised

Hello. Mikhail, with the more recent version of the LoopVectorize.cpp code (retrieved at the beginning of July 2016) I ran the following piece of C code: void foo(long *A, long *B, long *C, long N) { for (long i = 0; i < N; ++i) { C[i] = A[i] + B[i]; } } The vectorized LLVM program I obtain contains 2 vector.body blocks - one named

 > These is metadata for epilogues (UWOP_EPILOG) but it is only available on Windows 8.1 and newer. I'm aware of this. I believe it is so sampling profilers can walk the kernel stack including through paged code -- i.e. the epilogue data is not paged, while the related epilogue code might be. Do you see it used, i.e. in usermode?  (where the pdata/xdata/code are all equally paged). It

> Message: 3 > Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2016 17:49:50 -0700 > From: Michael Lewis via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: Hayden Livingston <halivingston at gmail.com> > Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Status of stack walking in LLVM on Win64? > Message-ID: > <CAEm7p3svyOi6JU6r_RCCtRfGhTgTHeRw-SR0iD+9Edv2pi71Dw at

Why are there two ways to compile LLVM? make and cmake! What's the difference of those two ways? - mudongliang

Hi I'm working on the XCore target and am having difficulty building libgcc. Background: If I use a libgcc built by llvm3.0-gcc with my current clang-llvm3.3 compiler, exceptions 'seem' to work. Trying to rebuild libgcc however breaks exception handling - they aren't caught! I thus assumed I needed to focus on the unwind code and particularly functions that call

(background) The CoreCLR expects a JIT to produce a MSIL bytecode offset to code offset mapping annotated with a few extra bits denoting if it’s prolog/epilog, or it’s a call, or if there’s operands remaining on the MSIL virtual stack in some cases. Our initial prototype has the MSIL offset stashed in the line number field. We could stash the extra bits in the column info but that’s starting to