similar to: ScalarEvolution pass and interprocedural analysis

Dmitrii, all, Please note, that GCC 5.3 had a significant update to the MPX code quality - please, use this version as reference. Regards, Sergos On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 12:49 AM, Kostya Serebryany via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Feb

Hello, even though the study of Intel MPX took much longer than expected, we have finally finished it. Currently, it is published in two formats: * as a technical report: https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.00719 * and as a webpage: https://intel-mpx.github.io/ This work contains evaluation of MPX from perspectives of performance (Phoenix, PARSEC, and SPEC benchmark suites), security (RIPE and found

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 4:59 AM, Dmitrii Kuvaiskii < Dmitrii.Kuvaiskii at tu-dresden.de> wrote: > >> Recently I played with MPX support on Intel C/C++ Compiler (icc). This > >> implementation looks *much* better, with the following example > >> overheads: 1.2X on "raytrace", 1.25X on "bodytrack", 1.08X on > >> "streamcluster".

I've recently played with the GCC implementation of pointer checker on a real hardware, my recent impressions are here: https://github.com/google/sanitizers/wiki/AddressSanitizerIntelMemoryProtectionExtensions (there is also some old pre-hardware content). In short, I totally agree with what David says above: MPX is a disaster. (Usual disclaimer: my opinion here is too biased) I am glad

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 6:27 AM, Dmitrii Kuvaiskii < Dmitrii.Kuvaiskii at tu-dresden.de> wrote: > I continue playing with Intel MPX and its support in modern compilers. > All experiments were done on the Alienware (Dell) 15 R2, Ubuntu 15.10 > (linux 4.2.0), gcc version is 5.2.1, icc version 2016.1.150. The > benchmark suite is PARSEC 3.0, all versions with 1 thread and default

This addition converts strlen() calls to strnlen() when the result is compared to a constant. For example, the following: strlen(s) < 5 Becomes: strnlen(s, 5) < 5 That way, we don't have to walk through the entire string. There is the added overhead of maintaining a counter when using strnlen(), but I thought I'd start with the general case. It may make sense to only use this

> First, is MPX hardware available now? I wouldn't mind getting my hands on > one. It is available at least in the mobile versions of the recent Intel Skylake CPUs. I am currently playing with Alienware 15 R2 with the following CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-6820HK. Interestingly, my preliminary experiments indicate that adding MPX bounds checking via Pointer Checker in gcc is usually

Hello, As far as I know, there is no MPX pass in LLVM (though the x86-64 backend already declares MPX registers and instructions). I wonder if anyone is currently working on the LLVM pass for MPX instrumentation, similar to Pointer Checker in gcc. If yes, could anyone elaborate on the status and accessability to other researchers? And if any help is needed? Prof. Santosh Nagarakatte, the author

Thanks Sanjoy, I'll look into this. -----Original Message----- From: Sanjoy Das [mailto:sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com] Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 8:07 AM To: Nema, Ashutosh <Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com> Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] ScalarEvolution questions Hi Ashutosh, On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 3:28 AM, Nema, Ashutosh via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at

Hi Sanjoy, Your inputs really helped. Using “isImpliedCond”, able to relate and find the min for cases like: SCEV1: (-1 + (sext i32 %n.addr.058 to i64))<nsw> SCEV2: 0 Extra-Condition: (n.addr.058 > 7) Result: ‘0’ (SCEV2) I have another case where trying to find min between two SCEVs under an extra condition. “isImpliedCond” is not helping for below case, may be I’m missing something:

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 1:24 AM, Nema, Ashutosh <Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com> wrote: > Hi Sanjoy, > > Your inputs really helped. > > Using “isImpliedCond”, able to relate and find the min for cases like: > > SCEV1: (-1 + (sext i32 %n.addr.058 to i64))<nsw> > SCEV2: 0 > Extra-Condition: (n.addr.058 > 7) > Result: ‘0’ (SCEV2) > > I have another case

Hi, I'm new to ScalarEvolution and wanted to explore its capabilities. I have following few questions: 1) How to compare SCEV expressions. I have a situation to compare two SCEV to find the min among them. Found an existing function(getMinFromExprs) in LoopAccessAnalysis which compares two SCEVs. getMinFromExprs function finds the diff between two SCEV's and then checks for the negative

Hi Ashutosh, On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 3:28 AM, Nema, Ashutosh via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I’m new to ScalarEvolution and wanted to explore its capabilities. > > I have following few questions: > > 1) How to compare SCEV expressions. > > I have a situation to compare two SCEV to find the min among them. > > Found an existing

Some doxygen annotations are attached to the wrong entry, which can be misleading. This patch fixes the mistake everywhere I could find it. --- include/llvm/InstrTypes.h | 54 ++++++++++++++++++++-------------------- include/llvm/MC/MCDirectives.h | 42 +++++++++++++++--------------- include/llvm/Pass.h | 10 +++--- 3 files changed, 53 insertions(+), 53 deletions(-) diff

hi all, i am have a project need to compute the back-edge taken count of a loop, and the "getBackedgeTakenCount" function of ScalarEvolution could do this for me. but later i found that ScalarEvolution could not compute loops with test expression containing a "=", such as: void scop_func(long A[], long n) { long i; for (i = 1; i<= n; i++) A[i] = 1; } after have

Hi Nick, I checked in something towards (1) yesterday -- http://reviews.llvm.org/D6748 I was under the impression that (2) is exactly the kind of predicate ScalarEvolution::isKnownPredicate is designed to solve (using isImpliedCondXXX or something like that). Is there a reason to prefer GVN over that? On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: > Sanjoy

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=96307 Bug ID: 96307 Summary: Kernel 4.7-rc1 oops when starting X Product: xorg Version: git Hardware: x86-64 (AMD64) OS: Linux (All) Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: medium Component: Driver/nouveau Assignee: nouveau at

ruby script/generate controller Tools::Search - ok in views/layouts/application.rhtml: <%= render_component :controller => ''tools/search'', :action => ''searchbox'', :params => {:context => ''header-section''} %> in

I'd like a value, call it Bottom, such that SE->getAddExpr(Bottom, X) => Bottom SE->getMulExpr(Bottom, X,) => Bottom isKnownPredicate(any, Bottom, X) => false etc. I can write code to make NULL work like I want, but it would be simpler if something was already defined. I'm wondering about SCEV::Unknown. The documentation suggests I could perhaps use it for a

Dear all, in src/include/GraphicsBase.h one has a declaration int baseRegisterIndex; the same as in src/main/devices.c which causes problems on Solaris, see bug #17385, and other platforms with "unusual" linkers, see bug #16633. By right, global variables like baseRegisterIndex are to be declared just once, and not in a header file, but in a *.c file. Then, to use them elsewhere in