similar to: Should we enable -Wrange-loop-analysis? (Was: [llvm] r261524 - Fix some abuse of auto...)

Given the following C++ code: ``` // test.cpp struct Foo { int public_foo(); int outside_foo(); [[gnu::always_inline]] int inline_foo() { int x = outside_foo(); if (x % 17) { x += 1; } return x; } [[gnu::noinline]] int inline_bar1() { int x = inline_foo(); if (x % 23) { x += 2; } return x; } [[gnu::noinline]] int inline_bar2() {

I'll need more details then. Maybe you can share the binary & its .sancov file? Or if you have a way to reproduce it? On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 1:23 PM Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Mike Aizatsky <aizatsky at google.com> > wrote: > > Justin, > > I haven't seen this before. I suspect it is because of

I'm working on a fuzzer using libFuzzer and I wanted to take a look at how my coverage was doing, as per the instructions here: http://llvm.org/docs/LibFuzzer.html#how-good-is-my-fuzzer First of all, I suspect the instructions there are out of date, but passing -dump_coverage=1 to the binary rather than setting ASAN_OPTIONS generated a .sancov file for me. However, when I inspect this

Is there is minimum required version for GCC to build LLVM from the head revision? I have GCC v4.9.3, but 'Tools/sancov/sancov.cc' won't build because 'std::to_string' does not exist. When running CMake it did not flag GCC v4.9.3 as too old, and it is passing the '-std=gnu++11' option, but apparently this version of GCC is not fully C++ 11 compliant, or at least

Justin, I haven't seen this before. I suspect it is because of line-tables-only. Can you try it with full debug info? On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:36 PM Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > +aizatsky > > On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> > wrote: > > I'm working on a fuzzer using libFuzzer and I wanted to take

Hi Fangrui, Many thanks for providing such detailed feedback! Please find my comments inlined below. - Ammar On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 5:59 AM Fangrui Song <maskray at google.com> wrote: > On 2020-06-26, Ammar Ben Khadra via llvm-dev wrote: > >## TL;DR > > > >We introduce bcov, an open-source binary-level coverage analysis tool [1]. > >The details are discussed

I think the simplest fix is something like this: diff --git a/lib/Transforms/Instrumentation/SanitizerCoverage.cpp b/lib/Transforms/Instrumentation/SanitizerCoverage.cpp index c6f0d17f8fe..e81957ab80a 100644 --- a/lib/Transforms/Instrumentation/SanitizerCoverage.cpp +++ b/lib/Transforms/Instrumentation/SanitizerCoverage.cpp @@ -256,6 +256,7 @@ SanitizerCoverageModule::CreateSecStartEnd(Module

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Kostya Serebryany via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> > wrote: > >> I think the simplest fix is something like this: >> >> diff --git a/lib/Transforms/Instrumentation/SanitizerCoverage.cpp >>

Rafael, Filipe, I am looking at the fixes you apply to sanitizer tests and they worry me. (e.g. https://reviews.llvm.org/D31498) The fixes are mostly mechanical and thus every single change looks safe, but given the amount of changes there is large risk to cripple some of the tests in a way that they will stop detecting failures. When I write a test for new functionality, I always verify that

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> > wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 3:21 PM, Kostya Serebryany via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 3:20

On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> wrote: > Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> writes: > > On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> > wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> > >> wrote:

Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> writes: > Justin, > Calling appendToUsed has horrible complexity and if we call it in > every function clang consumes tons of memory (6Gb when compiling one > of the clang's source files). This killed my machine today :) > > The solution is to call appendToUsed once per module, instead of once > per function. Oh right,

Hi, I'm playing around with LLVM and stumbled upon this issue while while performing "make install". The build itself was successful. I'm using the latest git version. #make install -- Installing: /home/alesko/llvm-install/bin/llvm-mc -- Installing: /home/alesko/llvm-install/bin/sancov -- Installing: /home/alesko/llvm-install/bin/opt -- Installing:

> On Aug 24, 2017, at 2:55 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > > Interesting. > This is a relatively new addition (fsanitize-coverage=pc-tables, which is now a part of -fsanitize=fuzzer). > The tests worked (did they? On Mac?) so I thought everything is ok. For tests we never compile the tested target with -O3 (and that wouldn’t be sufficient), and for

## TL;DR We introduce bcov, an open-source binary-level coverage analysis tool [1]. The details are discussed in our paper [2], which is accepted to ESEC/FSE'20. bcov statically instruments x86-64 ELF binaries without compiler support. It features several techniques that allow it to achieve high performance, transparency, and flexibility. For example, running "make

> On Dec 9, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Chris Bieneman via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Not sure, but my guess is that the ocaml documents targets aren’t being included in the ALL target, which is resulting in them not being built before the install action. I think you're right. Running "make ocaml_doc" then rerunning "make install" completed the

Dear llvm developpers, I followed the tutorial to build llvm and clang provided here: https://clang.llvm.org/get_started.html The sources are in sync with subversion repository, and I ended up with more than 30GB of binaries in llvm/bin as shown at the end of this message. I assume I did something wrong, but I did not find any entry in the doc that helps me understand how to reduce the size of

I believe a good amount of them (if not most of them) have already been ported! Off the top of my head, I remember that asan, tsan, msan, hwasan, the kernel santizers, and sancov have been ported. I don't think ubsan has been ported yet though. You can also check if other passes you need run under the new PM by checking PassRegistry.def. On Fri, Aug 2, 2019, 14:20 Jordan Rupprecht

Hi Alex Thanks for your email. But it seems not work. I removed the -fsanitize=address flag. The global buffer overflow message doesn't show. However, no *.sancov file is created after I run perlbench. Thus, I could not get the BB coverage. Do you have any ideas? Many Thanks Regards Muhui Alexander Potapenko <glider at google.com> 于2018年9月5日周三 下午7:14写道： > Hi Muhui, > > If

On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 6:21 PM, Manuel Yguel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Dear llvm developpers, > I followed the tutorial to build llvm and clang provided here: > https://clang.llvm.org/get_started.html > > The sources are in sync with subversion repository, and I ended up with more > than 30GB of binaries in llvm/bin as shown at the end of this