similar to: A "hello world" coverage sanitizer

Thank you, kcc. I am unsure if I misunderstand your reply. It seems that trace-bb, rather than trace-pc, fits better for my problem, given that my instrumentation is to put before each conditional statement. Do I misunderstand something here? " Tracing basic blocks <http://clang.llvm.org/docs/SanitizerCoverage.html#id11> With -fsanitize-coverage=trace-bb the compiler will insert

Hello, Is this reproducible? > Fuzzing is a probabilistic business and one or even two runs don't prove > much. > I've reproduced the behavior on two different machines. Attached is a script to do so. To use the script, - create an empty folder and copy both prune-blocks.sh and ff-http-parser.sh in there - ensure clang and clang++ are in your $PATH - cd /path/to/prune-blocks.sh

Hello LLVM devs, I'm running lots of experiments with LibFuzzer these days -- it's an amazing tool! I've noticed something weird while examining the effect of various coverage options: for one of my benchmarks, the fuzzer was achieving a higher total coverage before April 2016, when -sanitizer-coverage-prune-blocks became true by default (commit

> On Sep 21, 2016, at 9:36 AM, Kostya Serebryany via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Exciting! > > (btw, I'd prefer libfuzzer at googlegroups.com <mailto:libfuzzer at googlegroups.com> for such discussions, please start new topics there) You mean a LLVM library has a separate mailing-list? Why? — Mehdi > > I can reproduce this too, but

> On Sep 21, 2016, at 12:56 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>> wrote: > >> On Sep 21, 2016, at 9:36 AM, Kostya Serebryany via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:

Hello All, How can I keep track of the different basic blocks of a program executed over time? Or in other words, how can I annotate the block name (block_a) and the time/cycle at which that blocs (block_a) was executed, and do this for all the blocks on a reasonable simple program? Regards, Raul. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi, I wonder whether we can easily retrieve an LLVM instruction ID that uniquely identifies the instruction. In my case, I need to avoid using llvm::Instruction* directly. Given an 'inst' of type llvm::instruction*, is there some readily usable method as simple as "int id = inst->id( )"? Thanks. Zhoulai -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was

David, As you suggested, I try to compile the following test code: *include "llvm/IR/Instruction.h"#include "stdint.h"extern void callback(intptr_t);void foo(){ llvm::Instruction* i; intptr_t zzzz=static_cast<intptr_t>(i); callback(zzzz);}* but got this compilation error: * 'intptr_t' (aka 'long') is not allowed intptr_t

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 >>

The source is cloned from https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm Thanks. Zhoulai On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Jonathan Roelofs <jonathan at codesourcery.com> wrote: > > > On 4/9/15 9:58 AM, Zhoulai wrote: > >> Hi, I am using LLVM to develop a tool, using Mac OS 10.9. I have >> download llvm source and binary from >> >>

Hi, I am using LLVM to develop a tool, using Mac OS 10.9. I have download llvm source and binary from http://llvm.org/releases/download.html I just find the BasicBlock.h file of the binary package clang+llvm-3.6.0-x86_64-apple-darwin/include/llvm/IR/BasicBlock.h is slightly different from that of the source llvm/include/llvm/IR/BasicBlock.h In particular, llvm:: getModule(..)

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

Hi, Are there some built-in LLVM transformation pass, or written library code that transforms LLVM::SwitchInst into if-condition statements (LLVM:: BranchInst)? The purpose of the transformation is that we have a legacy program analyzer that includes an LLVM pass manipulating if-condition statements. Statements of LLVM::SwithchInst should have been handled in the same manner but was not done.

Hello, I am looking for a loop unfolding procedure implemented in LLVM that helps to transform a while-loop to n-layer If-statements. The transformation should be on IR, although the example below is illustrated on the source level. original loop: * WHILE (condition) DO action ENDWHILE* Expected unfolded loop (2-layer): * IF (condition) THEN* * action* * IF

Hi, I have a naive question on how to generate LLVM IR for inline functions. I have compiled this C code: *inline void func1()* * {* * int x=3;* * }* * void func2()* * {* * func1();* * int y = 4;* * }* into LLVM IR, using clang -emit-llvm -S -c <filename> But the generated LLVM IR file does *not* have func1() expanded (see below for the relevant parts). *; Function Attrs: nounwind

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

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,

> On Sep 21, 2016, at 1:25 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>> wrote: > >> On Sep 21, 2016, at 12:56 PM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com <mailto:kcc at google.com>> wrote: >> >> >>