similar to: [GSoC16] Seeking Guidance for a project regarding SAFECode

Hi, I am wondering if anyone could run ArrayBoundChecks located in SafeCode-llvm37 (https://github.com/jtcriswell/safecode-llvm37) on llvm-3.8? Thanks. Syed -- Rafi

Hi, I'm trying to get the pool allocator and safe code building against llvm trunk. I've run into a build error, and I see that in the past another user was told just not to build the pool allocator for use with safecode [1]. However, I really want the pool allocator transforms, so I just wanted to check why the suggestion was not to use it. Has it been superseded in some way by something

Thanks for the fast response John. On Thu, Oct 1, 2015, at 04:51 PM, John Criswell wrote: > Dear Ed, > > First, someone has updated the DSA code in the poolalloc project to LLVM > 3.7, and a Master's student worked for me over the summer to update a > large chunk of SAFECode to LLVM 3.7. However, the update to LLVM 3.7 > isn't finished (we need to finish integrating

I hope this is the correct avenue to contact the poolalloc developers. I'm trying to use an alias analysis from the poolalloc repository and can't get it to compile with the latest LLVM. CMake is now required for LLVM, I'm pretty sure at least, but poolalloc does not seem to use it correctly. The README in the project refers to the old Makefiles. I corrected a minor CMake error and a

Hi all, Can anyone give me advice about an appropriate way for extracting number of functions from module recursively (starting from entry point). Actually it may be more than one entry point so all dependent functions and global values must be extracted. I've tried llvm-extract tool but it can't do work recursively. Maybe it would be good to write some Call Graph pass or something. Any

For the current project I'm working on (https://github.com/mono/CppSharp) having the flags to change the ABI based on a GCC version would be ideal. If there are no flags, this means we must implement some logic to change the calling conventions of methods manually to how they were pre-4.7. Should not be a lot of work but it'd be best to contain all the C++ ABI details inside Clang itself.

On 10 December 2013 09:16, João Matos <ripzonetriton at gmail.com> wrote: > For the current project I'm working on (https://github.com/mono/CppSharp) > having the flags to change the ABI based on a GCC version would be ideal. If > there are no flags, this means we must implement some logic to change the > calling conventions of methods manually to how they were pre-4.7.

Please create a similar branch for Klee; I've been working on porting that to 2.7 as well.<br /> <br /> Best, Erich Ocean<br /> <br /> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 8:43 PM, John Criswell (criswell@uiuc.edu) wrote:<br /> > <br /> > Dear SAFECoders and LLVMers,<br /> > <br /> > There is some new work on moving DSA to the new LLVM 2.7 API.

Hi, On Linux I observed [root at localhost poolalloc]# find . -name *.a ./Release+Asserts/lib/LLVMDataStructure.a ./Release+Asserts/lib/poolalloc.a ./Release+Asserts/lib/AssistDS.a ./Release+Asserts/lib/libpoolalloc_fl_rt.a ./Release+Asserts/lib/libpoolalloc_rt.a ./Release+Asserts/lib/libpa_pre_rt.a ./Release+Asserts/lib/libcount.a On cygwin I observed kpawar at KPAWAR-LT

Are there any plans to add CMake support to the build of SAFECode? Also are there any current instructions for building llvm/clang with SAFECode support from current svn? Jack

Hello All, I am looking at exploring what benefits SAFECode has to offer over clang S.A and llvm's instrumentation tools like memory sanitizer and address sanitizer. I could come up with the following that are not provided in ASAN/MSAN/Clang S.A -> dangling pointer error and detection -> crashes in system libraries due to security vulnerabilities. In the process, I wanted to run the

Hi All , Was trying to build the LLVM src from http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/branches/release_30 ,But unable to build the same and clang poped up with below error . llvm[1]: Compiling IntervalMap.cpp for Debug build In file included from /root/projects/safecode/llvm/lib/Support/IntervalMap.cpp:14: /root/projects/safecode/llvm/include/llvm/ADT/IntervalMap.h:1980:32: error: use

On 10/27/16 11:18 AM, Aliaksei Zasenka via llvm-dev wrote: > Hi all, > Can anyone give me advice about an appropriate way for extracting > number of functions from module recursively (starting from entry > point). Actually it may be more than one entry point so all dependent > functions and global values must be extracted. > > I've tried llvm-extract tool but it

Dear All, We now have two new mailing lists for SAFECode: 1) svadev: This mailing list is for discussion on SAFECode. Questions and comments about using SAFECode as well as development conversation on SAFECode can go here. 2) sva-commits: This mailing list gets email for all SVN commits made to SAFECode. -- John T.

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:39 PM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu>wrote: > On 5/14/12 4:32 AM, Umesh Kalappa wrote: > > Hi All , > > Was trying to build the LLVM src from > http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/branches/release_30 ,But unable to > build the same and clang poped up with below error . > > > First, it sounds like you're building LLVM

On 2/26/15 9:54 AM, Jyoti Rajendra Allur wrote: > Hello All, > I am looking at exploring what benefits SAFECode has to offer over clang S.A and llvm's instrumentation tools like memory sanitizer and address sanitizer. Are you looking for an off-the-shelf tool, or are you looking for approaches to use in your own tool? > I could come up with the following that are not provided in

Thank you all for the responses, John, My Bad here you go clang version 3.2 (trunk) Target: i386-pc-linux-gnu Thread model: posix [root at localhost opensrc]# cat /etc/centos-release CentOS release 6.2 (Final) Matthieu, Thanks for the fix and let me try again with latest trunk. ~Umesh On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Matthieu Monrocq <

SVA/safecode looks interesting. Is it available to play with? I grepped for strings such as "sva" "secure" "safecode" in the LLVM source tree and didn't find anything, nor did I see obvious links to implementations from the project web pages. In the short term, questions I'd be interested in answering are: What happens when embedded codes that I care

John, The release source code (sc-main.tar) won't compile cleanly under Debian6-i386 (gcc/g++: 4.4.5). The compiler back trace is attached. Please fix it/them and repost. Or, 64b system is a requirement? Thank you Chuck llvm[4]: Compiling TypeRuntime.cpp for Release+Asserts build (PIC) cc1plus: warnings being treated as errors

Hi, My apologies for the trouble. I've disabled building DynamicTypeChecks for now (r138224) and now it builds cleanly on 32bit for me here. As for SAFECode support for 32bit vs 64bit, I believe 32bit should work just fine although I haven't personally tested this. Let me know if you have any further issues/questions. ~Will On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Chuck Zhao <czhao at