similar to: How to resolve conflicts between sanitizer_common and system headers

> On Jul 1, 2016, at 12:10 PM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov at google.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 8:53 PM, Anna Zaks <ganna at apple.com> wrote: >> Hi Sanitizer Runtime Developers, >> >> We recently ran into a problem building clang because some of the >> definitions in sanitizer_common conflicted with system definitions and later >>

Hi, what's the current status of the memory-ordered operations described in https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYWBeVVqyP7dZGRiNG1oeHpfMjJkejVnOThkZA&hl=en.&pli=1 i.e. the ones for "load acquire", "store release" etc. for C++0x atomics, not the older ones for the __sync intrinsics? The specification looks good - is it just waiting to be implemented? Al --

Hi Mon Wang, As I understand it the C++0x memory model will, by default, be similar to Java's in that it will assume sequential consistency, using acquire/release atomics (similar to Java's volatile), for all programs that do not contain data races. Unlike Java in the case when a program contains a data race, the program behavior is undefined. Adopting this model allows many sequential

Hi Ben, Vacation is always a good thing. Hope you had a good one. In my mind, having a more general memory consistency model is going to be very useful in LLVM in the future. It is still a little unclear to me what we should support. I haven't looked at what C++ is considering for their model. Are they going to support different relaxations models like relaxing write to read or

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Dean Michael Berris <dean.berris at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 22 Nov 2017, at 02:32, comic fans <comicfans44 at gmail.com> wrote: > > with some dirty hack , I've made xray runtime 'built' on windows , > > > \o/ with more test, I've found that trampoline didn't got built for windows :/ currently cmake didn't

> } while (__c11_atomic_compare_exchange_weak( > addr, &oldval, newval, memory_order_seq_cst, memory_order_relaxed)); Actually, I think this condition is inverted. Should be "while (!_c11...". Sorry about that. Tim.

First off, thanks -- this is a pretty great library and it feels like I'm learning a lot. I'm getting some more experience with libfuzzer and finding that I have a couple of questions: - How does libfuzzer decide to write a new test file? What distinguishes this one from all the other cases for which new test inputs were not written? Must be something about the path taken through the

Hello! A proposal (quaintly identified as P0190R0) for a new memory_order_consume definition may be found here: http://www2.rdrop.com/users/paulmck/submission/consume.2016.02.10b.pdf As requested at the October C++ Standards Committee meeting, this is a follow-on to P0098R1 that picks one alternative and describes it in detail. This approach focuses on existing practice, with the goal of

with some dirty hack , I've made xray runtime 'built' on windows , but unfortunately I haven't enough knowledge about linker and the runtime, and finally built executable didn't run. I'd like to share my changes here , hopes somebody help me to make it run on windows. in AsmPrinter, copy/paster xray for coff target InstMap =

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 8:43 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 1:13 PM, James Y Knight <foom at fuhm.net> wrote: >> Hi, thanks everyone for all the comments. I think maybe I wasn't clear that >> I *only* care about atomicity w.r.t. a signal handler interruption in the >> same thread, *not* across threads. Therefore,

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 09:15:16PM -0500, Tony V E wrote: > There's at least one easy answer in there: > > > ‎If implementations must support annotation, what form should that > annotation take?  P0190R0 recommends the [[carries_dependency]] > attribute, but I am not picky as long as it can be (1) applied > to all relevant pointer-like objects and (2) used in C as well

Quoting Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com>: > On 24 April 2015 at 13:53, Tyler Denniston <tyler at csail.mit.edu> wrote: >> I'm wondering how I can create an atomic load and add instruction for >> floating point values. If I use IRBuilder::CreateAtomicRMW() I get the >> error message: "atomicrmw operand must have integer type". > >

If carries_dependency affects semantics, then it should not be an attribute. The original design, or at least my understanding of it, was that it not have semantics; it was only a suggestion to the compiler that it should preserve dependencies instead of inserting a fence at the call site. Dependency-based ordering would be preserved in either case. But I think we're moving away from that

Hi All , We are looking at the C sample i.e extern int i,j; int test() { while(1) { i++; j=20; } return 0; } command used :(clang version 3.8.0-2ubuntu4 (tags/RELEASE_380/final) ) clang -S test.c -O2 the generated asm for x86 .L2: jmp .L2 we understand that,the infinite loop is not deterministic ,compiler is free to treat as that as UB and do aggressive

Dear testers, 7.0.0-rc1 was just tagged (from the branch at r338847). It's early in the release process, but I'd like to find out what the status is of the branch on our various platforms. Please run the test script, share the results, and upload binaries. Thanks, Hans

Hello, fencing enthusiasts! *TL;DR:* We'd like to propose an addition to the LLVM memory model requiring non-temporal accesses be surrounded by non-temporal load barriers and non-temporal store barriers, and we'd like to add such orderings to the fence IR opcode. We are open to different approaches, hence this email instead of a patch. *Who's "we"?* Philip Reames brought

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 1:13 PM, James Y Knight <foom at fuhm.net> wrote: > Hi, thanks everyone for all the comments. I think maybe I wasn't clear that > I *only* care about atomicity w.r.t. a signal handler interruption in the > same thread, *not* across threads. Therefore, many of the problems of > cross-CPU atomicity are not relevant. The signal handler gets invoked via

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 8:08 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Brian Cain via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >> First off, thanks -- this is a pretty great library and it feels like I'm >> learning a lot. >> > > Thanks! > > >> I'm getting some

Hello, I trying TSAN on Darwin on LLVM itself (sanitizing multi-threaded ThinLTO link). However I see two main issues on my debug build: 1) Statistics: the pre/post increment is not safe, it seems to be acknowledge in the code itself: // FIXME: This function and all those that follow carefully use an // atomic operation to update the value safely in the presence of // concurrent

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at google.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 8:43 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 1:13 PM, James Y Knight <foom at fuhm.net> wrote: >>> Hi, thanks everyone for all the comments. I think maybe I wasn't clear that >>> I *only* care about