similar to: Landing Pad bug?

We have code that processes a buffer in the forward or backwards direction. It looks similar to the following (https://github.com/weidai11/cryptopp/blob/master/adv-simd.h#L1138): uint8_t * ptr = ... size_t len = ... size_t inc = 16; if (flags & REVERSE_DIRECTION) { ptr += len - inc; inc = 0-inc; } while (len > 16) { // process blocks ptr += inc; len -= 16; } Clang

Hi Everyone, We caught a report for a failed self test when using Clang 5.0 and 6.0 with -DDEBUG and -O1 (i.e., a "debug build"). The code is question is located at https://github.com/weidai11/cryptopp/blob/master/cham-simd.cpp . It is the SSSE3 code path for CHAM64. Other optimizations levels are OK for Clang. GCC, ICC and MSVC are OK. The code is valgrind, Sanitizer, Coverity and

I'm testing on older OS X 10.8 with older SSE4 hardware from about 2010. I've got updated gear from MacPorts and it includes GCC and Clang. GCC is the compiler, and Clang is the assembler. We perform a compile/link on a test file to ensure an ISA is supported by the toolchain. If an ISA is available then we compile a source file to the ISA as needed. Then, we guard the higher ISAs at

Hi, I just tried to build using http://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/epel/6/SRPMS/pdns-3.1-2.el6.src.rpm on CentOS 6.4 final (kernel: 2.6.32-358.2.1.el6.x86_64), but it failed when looking for ldap libs: Note: I did not change anything in the original spec file. ... + ./configure --build=x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu --host=x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu --target=x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu

Hi Dimitry, I do not particularly need to build libc++ from the package. Is the name of the package's libc++, libcxx, because this is where the installation starts finding undefined references, during linking CXX shared library ../../../lib/libc++.so. Please check below the first part of the log when the first error appear, I omited repeating results. Furthermore, the undefined references are

Hi Ioannis, Just delete the projects/libcxx directory, then rebuild from scratch. You should only need to checkout llvm (in the top level directory) and cfe (into the tools/clang subdirectory). -Dimitry > On 29 Mar 2016, at 00:08, Ioannis Koukoulis <i.g.koukoulis at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Dimitry, > > I do not particularly need to build libc++ from the package. Is the

Why are legacy MACs (like md5-96), and legacy Ciphers (anything in cbc-mode, arcfour*(?)) enabled by default? My proposal would be to change the defaults for ssh_config and sshd_config to contain: MACs hmac-sha2-256,hmac-sha2-512,hmac-sha1 Ciphers aes128-ctr,aes192-ctr,aes256-ctr ...removing md5, truncated versions of sha1, umac64 (for which I can find barely any review), any cipher in cbc

Hi Dimitry, this definitely worked. I am passed by the linking errors regarding libc++ or similar. My build stopped now at 95% while linking a clang extra, I am not pretty sure which because i do not have my laptop, possible the clang-rename, if such exists. No undefined references here, however, my hdd's free space run out, so this might be the cause. I have to move or expand now, alas!! The

Hi Ioannis, If you only want the clang static analyzer, there is no need to check out and build libc++ as part of the process. The rest of the build can just use the system C++ library, which will be libstdc++ on Xubuntu. That said, without the full build log, it is hard to say what went wrong. Specifically, which references were undefined? -Dimitry > On 26 Mar 2016, at 16:04, Ioannis

In the past people in #llvm suggested to me I should use landing pads instead of seh when it comes to Windows unless i really need seh. Looking at what gets generated win64 -gnu does use seh but calls the landing pad somehow, while win32 doesn't at all. It looks to me a custom win64 landing pad personality can also deal with things like Access Violation. Is there a way to make win32 also

Hello everybody, I am very new to llvm and I am struggling to install it on my 15.10 Xubuntu with kernel 4.2.0-34-generic #39-Ubuntu SMP x86_64 GNU/Linux. I essentially intend to use the clang static analyzer, but it seems that I have to build it on top of llvm and clang. Unfortunately I run into the following problem. CXX shared library ../../../lib/libc++.so at around 52% of the procedure

Hi all, I've been investigating a machine verifier failure on the attached testcase, and I'm tempted to say the verifier is wrong and should accept it. Skip the description for the proposed change. On AArch64, the verifier complains with: *** Bad machine code: MBB exits via unconditional branch but doesn't have exactly one CFG successor! *** - function: t4 - basic

On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 4:56 PM Praveen Velliengiri <praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com> wrote: > > HI > Did you run the static constructor and destructor? How did you make your process symbols visible to ORC jit? Yes. It's the constructor that generates the undefined symbol error. We use DynamicLibrary::LoadLibraryPermanently(nullptr) to add process symbols. > Could you

You can add symbols from Archieve via StaticLibrarySearchGenerator. But it is added recently though On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 at 21:02, Praveen Velliengiri < praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Geoff, > I tried it, but I can't able to reproduce it. > > Test Program: > #include <fstream> > int main() > { > std::ifstream stream1, stream2; >

> On Dec 1, 2015, at 11:14 PM, David Majnemer <david.majnemer at gmail.com> wrote: > > While we support 'opaque' types nested within struct types, they are not exactly battle tested: > > $ cat t.ll > %opaque_ty = type opaque > > %struct_ty = type { i32, %opaque_ty } > > define %struct_ty @f(%struct_ty* %p) { > %load = load %struct_ty,

> I dont have a concrete design right now and I am happy to take any other ideas Three ideas come to mind, none of which are perfect: 1) I'm tempted to say that now that we have token type, landingpad should generally produce a token, the pointer should be extracted with the @llvm.eh.exceptionpointer intrinsic instead of an extractvalue, and the selector should likewise be extracted with

It seems a little backwards to me to check the landingpad's type as the first check, since the personality dictates the landingpad's type. That said, yes I see how #4 is expedient in allowing personalities using the two main types to lump themselves into EHPersonality::Unknown. As for supporting selector and exception pointer extraction for landingpad of token type, I think you'll

What? Yet another EH proposal?! This one is different from the others in that I'm planning to start implementing this shortly. But I want your feedback! I've all ready gotten a lot of feedback from Chris, John, Jim, Eric, and many others. Now is your turn! Please read this proposal and send me your comments, suggestions, and concerns. -bw

On Jul 22, 2011, at 11:44 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: > On Jul 22, 2011, at 10:29 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > >> // Restrictions: >> >> There are several new invariants which will be enforced by the verifier: >> >> 1. A landing pad block is a basic block which is the unwind destination of an >> invoke instruction. >> 2. A landing pad block

Guys, on second thought... doesn't making the exception registers live from the InvokeInst to the LandingpadInst create problems for critical-edge-splitting ? if a landingpad-edge is critical and needs to be split, won't we be creating and inserting a new BB between the "invoke-block" and the "landingpad-block", and if we do then isn't there the