similar to: [GSoc 2016] Proposal - Capture Tracking Improvements

Hello Anna, I've been looking into compiling a list of all of the false positives in the current Capture Tracking Analysis, but I'm having a bit of trouble getting my head around it all. I feel like I understand it at a theoretical level but jumping into the implementation is quite daunting. I would appreciate any advice you could give to point me in the right direction. Many thanks,

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 4:02 PM, Philip Reames via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > (+CC LLVM dev - I'd dropped it in my original reply unintentionally and > just noticed.) > > On 06/07/2016 01:35 PM, Philip Reames wrote: > >> (This was written in a rush. There may be mistakes; if so I'll try to >> correct later.) >> >> At the

Hello, This is a more detailed overview of my progress than the weekly reports, which can also be found on the mailing list. Over the past two weeks I have been learning a lot more about capture tracking. From this I was able to instrument the current implementation in order to identify some of the false positives in it. I was hoping to have more definitive results by now than what I

Hey Scott, There has been quite a lot of research on capture tracking (aka escape analysis) for Java and other dynamic languages. See e.g.: https://wiki.openjdk.java.net/display/HotSpot/EscapeAnalysis http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/guides/vm/performance-enhancements-7.html http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=320384.320386 Nuno -----Original Message----- From: Scott Egerton via

Hi Phillip, I've been looking into the Capture Tracking Improvements and I was wondering if there was any research/documentation that you know of that I could use as background reading? Many thanks, Scott

PR43308 describes a case where StackProtector fails to protect against a fairly simple smash. This problem started after r363169, which removed StackProtector's own analysis function HasAddressTaken, and used CaptureTracking's PointerMayBeCaptured instead. The problem here is that "pointer is captured" and "pointer could be used to smash the stack" are not equivalent

Hello! I am trying to retrieve all instructions from a function's body that are dependent on a specific argument. The strategy I am currently using for that is to follow all uses of the argument and record them. Also, whenever I encounter a store of a dependent value, I try to find loads in the function that are dependent on that store and resume use-tracking from there. For this purpose I am

Hi Stephan, > I am trying to retrieve all instructions from a function's body that > are dependent on a specific argument. The strategy I am currently > using for that is to follow all uses of the argument and record them. > Also, whenever I encounter a store of a dependent value, I try to find > loads in the function that are dependent on that store and resume >

On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 2:26 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Stephan, > >> I am trying to retrieve all instructions from a function's body that >> are dependent on a specific argument. The strategy I am currently >> using for that is to follow all uses of the argument and record them. >> Also, whenever I encounter a store of a dependent

TL;DR: I'm looking to have AliasAnalysis passes have the ability keep a temporary cache when no transformations are performed. I'm interested to first and foremost clarify what is the best way to even start such an infrastructure change, such that it is not abused (or even available) by other passes. We certainly don't want to keep arbitrary caches in all passes. Would making this a

Hi Hal, Yes, the "internal" caches AA would be valid as long as the IR is not mutated. Are you suggesting keeping them? It's possible, but it will be very tricky to ensure they are cleared at the right times and they will likely be prone to adding hidden bugs. I don't have strong indications currently that keeping such information would be useful by other users, other than

Tony, I?m not sure what exactly you?re trying to do, but you're not really taking advantage of vectorization in your R code. I've tried to clean it up a little. The clamped lognormal is almost always 0 or L? That seems a little odd. You seem to be using the inverse cdf method of drawing samples. That's not necessary in R for standard probability distributions. You may want to do a

It looks rails automatically creates a "finder" method on models that have a "belongs_to". So I tried this in the console: c = Category.find(2) chunks = Chunk.find_by_category(c) chunks is always returned as an empty array. When I know have some chunks with a category_id of 2. Should the find_by_category do what I think it should be doing or am I completely off base?

Further to my email below, I have just realised that I forgot to include the specification of L and R. Hence, the code needs to include the following additional lines at the start;- L<-7.5e6 R<-2.5e6 Apologies for any confusion caused! Best regards, Tony > On 12 Jul 2017, at 10:03 AM, HUL-Anthony Egerton <aegerton at huntingtonunderwriting.com> wrote: > > I am trying

tune2fs against a LVM (albeit formatted with ext4) is not the same as tune2fs against ext4. Could this possibly be a machine where uptime has outlived its usefulness? On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Chris Murphy <lists at colorremedies.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Matt Garman <matthew.garman at gmail.com> > wrote: > > > ># rpm -qf `which

Hello, I've set-uped a Linux server in a small office, around 10 users, there is an old novel server, running version 3.12. My task was to establish an alternative for the old server, for the case It suddenly didn't feel like working anymore (you see, it's a Pentium Pro 200, it outlived itself at least a few times over). So basically, everybody have access to it using IPX (

On Sat, April 30, 2016 8:54 am, William Warren wrote: > uptime=insecurity. This sounds like MS Windows admin's statement. Are there any Unix admins still left around who remember systems with kernel that doesn't need [security] patching for few years? And libc that does not need security patches often. I almost said glibc, but on those Unixes it was libc; glibc, however, wasn't

On 2 August 2014 00:40, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > If memory serves me well (it doesn't), these are the list of things we > agreed on making, and their progress: > > 1. Performance-specific test-suite: a group of specific benchmarks > that should be tracked with the LNT infrastructure. Hal proposed to > look at this, but other people helped

Hey everyone! This Summer we managed to make the Clang Static Analyzer support the LLVM and LLVM-based projects with my mentors Artem Dergachev and Gabor Horvath. For a more detailed documentation please visit my final report: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o9-xEWbzivUGKIOXp9jUNZYq0mkecd5KH5dBN5Hdlu8/ The project in a nutshell: I have fixed the most annoying false positives and added

I had samba working on an old Sun Enterprise server using a JBOD that was managed with veritas volume manager (legacy stuff that had long outlived it's usefulness). Management arbitrarily decided to replace the aging Solaris server with a native Windows server without talking to me. I instead tried to persuade them to use an SGI cluster I had been putting together and use newer features of