similar to: UBSan runtime options

Folks, As of this run: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-cmake-armv7-a15-full/builds/746 There are three classes of failures that need fixing before we get the bot green: 1. AddressSanitizer.BuiltinLongJmpTest Unit Test Two configurations fail: * Asan-arm-inline-Test * Asan-arm-with-calls-Test I wonder what's the best way to run it individually and reduce the error. I'm not

Whatever we end up deciding, I think we do need to preserve the ability of a language frontend to generate complete garbage in the form of unreachable code. If we decide to move in the direction of disallowing the production of unreachable code, we need to write a canonicalization pass that runs first thing in the pipeline. A frontend should be able to produce unreachable code. This

Hello, I encountered a problem triggered by Jump-Threading optimization. This pass is creating an unreachable block with an instruction that is not well formed, which then causes the subsequent GVN pass to enter an infinite loop. I have submitted a bug report and proposed fix to llvm-commits. This bug opened a can of worms. I was asked to move the discussion to llvm-dev to reach for a wider

Hi all, TL;DR 1) We should change the way we parse common runtime flags in sanitizers. 2) We should make ASan aware of the tools it can be combined with (LSan and UBSan). 3) We may have to restrict the tools UBSan can be combined with (currently to ASan) (see [1]) Currently we have two kinds of sanitizer runtime flags: tool-specific flags and "common flags", defined in sanitizer_common

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 2:00 AM, Alexander Potapenko <glider at google.com> wrote: > Hope you're assuming there's always a single copy of common_flags in > the process. > This isn't the case for e.g. ASan+UBSan on Mac, but that's a broken setup. > > What if we let the tools protect specific flags (by adding a bool to > each flag) once they set their values

Hello, LLVM generates two additional instructions for 128->256 bit typecasts (e.g. _mm256_castsi128_si256()) to clear out the upper 128 bits of YMM register corresponding to source XMM register. vxorps xmm2,xmm2,xmm2 vinsertf128 ymm0,ymm2,xmm0,0x0 Most of the industry-standard C/C++ compilers (GCC, Intel's compiler, Visual Studio compiler) don't generate any extra moves

I am building LLVM on OS X 10.7.5 with cmake. Under this configuration some ASan and UBSan tests are failing: $ make check-ubsan … ******************** Testing Time: 2.36s ******************** Failing Tests (11): UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer :: Float/cast-overflow.cpp UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer :: Integer/add-overflow.cpp UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer :: Integer/div-zero.cpp

Some more information … On Jan 4, 2013, at 6:56 PM, Meador Inge wrote: > I am building LLVM on OS X 10.7.5 with cmake. Under this configuration some ASan and UBSan tests > are failing: > > $ make check-ubsan > > … > > ******************** > Testing Time: 2.36s > ******************** > Failing Tests (11): > UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer ::

I also encounter this issue and solved it locally by implementing this 2 functions. - The linux version of StartSymbolizerSubprocess uses only POSIX function and can be reused as is on OS X (maybe we should move it in a new sanitizer_symbolizer_posix.cc file) - I have a simple implementation of GetListOfModules (see the attached file) but it required 10.6 at least. That said, implementing this

See attached some quick slides (backup from the dev meeting talk) about the pass pipeline. -- Mehdi Le mer. 11 avr. 2018 à 12:18, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> a écrit : > > > Le mer. 11 avr. 2018 à 11:20, <katya.romanova at sony.com> a écrit : > >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> >> *Sent:*

I've been working on adding UBSan support to CMake (so that errors found by it can be uploaded to CDash for viewing). One problem is that the message is very generic. The patch here addes 'UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer' to the message so that they may be detected more easily. If something else is wanted (such as the '===' lines from ASan or TSan to cope with things like printing

Hi Evgeniy, So, to XFAIL some UBSAN failues, I found an issue: UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer-AddressSanitizer :: TestCases/TypeCheck/vptr.cpp UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer-Standalone :: TestCases/Misc/missing_return.cpp These two tests fail on that configuration, but pass when reversed. So, if I XFAIL: armv7l..., I get the following error: UndefinedBehaviorSanitizer-AddressSanitizer ::

Hi Mehdi, Awesome! It’s a very clear design. The only question left is which pipeline to choose for unified compile-phase optimization pipeline. - ThinLTO compile-phase pipeline? It might very negatively affect compile-time and the memory footprint for FullLTO link-phase. That was the reason why so many optimization were moved from the link-phase to the parallel compile-phase for FullLTO

From: Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 11:53 PM To: Romanova, Katya <katya.romanova at sony.com> Cc: David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>; Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] exploring possibilities for unifying ThinLTO and FullLTO frontend + initial optimization

On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 11:52 PM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Le mar. 10 avr. 2018 à 23:18, <katya.romanova at sony.com> a écrit : > >> Hi Mehdi, >> >> >> >> Awesome! It’s a very clear design. The only question left is which >> pipeline to choose for unified compile-phase optimization pipeline. >> >> -

Le mar. 10 avr. 2018 à 23:18, <katya.romanova at sony.com> a écrit : > Hi Mehdi, > > > > Awesome! It’s a very clear design. The only question left is which > pipeline to choose for unified compile-phase optimization pipeline. > > - ThinLTO compile-phase pipeline? It might very negatively affect > compile-time and the memory footprint for FullLTO link-phase.

Hi Peter, Thank you for the clarification ☺. I’m sure you have a very good understanding of how much efforts it will take to write a patch for legacy C LTO to implement caching the same way it’s done in new C++ LTO API. How easy/difficult do you think it will be (very roughly, in LOC)? Do you anticipate that a lot of existing legacy C LTO infrastructure will have to be rewritten? Could this also

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 7:34 PM, <katya.romanova at sony.com> wrote: > Hi Peter, > > > > Thank you for the clarification J. > > > > I’m sure you have a very good understanding of how much efforts it will > take to write a patch for legacy C LTO to implement caching the same way > it’s done in new C++ LTO API. How easy/difficult do you think it will be >

Hi, It is non trivial to recompute summaries (which is why we have summaries in the bitcode in the first place by the way), because bitcode is expensive to load. I think shipping two different variant of the bitcode, one with and one without summaries isn't providing much benefit while complicating the flow. We could achieve what you're looking for by revisiting the flow a little. I

Le mer. 11 avr. 2018 à 11:20, <katya.romanova at sony.com> a écrit : > > > > > *From:* Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 10, 2018 11:53 PM > *To:* Romanova, Katya <katya.romanova at sony.com> > *Cc:* David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>; Teresa Johnson < > tejohnson at google.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at