similar to: Contributing a new sanitizer for pointer casts

Hi Vedant, > I enjoyed reading through your EuroLLVM slides and OOPSLA paper. > Detecting the creation of contract-violating pointers is an > interesting idea, and your paper demonstrates that the checking can > be comprehensive and effective. Glad you enjoyed them. :-) > However, I have concerns about the quality of diagnostics, the > complexity of the driver, and about

Hi everyone, At EuroLLVM, Chandler and I chatted about the design for a potential TBAA sanitizer. Here's my attempt to summarize: C/C++ have type-based aliasing rules, and LLVM's optimizer can exploit these given TBAA metadata added by Clang. Roughly, a pointer of given type cannot be used to access an object of a different type (with, of course, certain exceptions). Unfortunately,

On 04/07/2017 09:26 AM, Stephen Kell wrote: >> At EuroLLVM, Chandler and I chatted about the design for a potential >> TBAA sanitizer. Here's my attempt to summarize: >> >> C/C++ have type-based aliasing rules, and LLVM's optimizer can exploit >> these given TBAA metadata added by Clang. Roughly, a pointer of given >> type cannot be used to access an

This is a general invite to any/all Railers in the Seattle area who want to get together for beer/food. Nothing formal, just a "get to know ya" gathering. Details: Thursday, Oct 13 (next week), 7pm Bellevue Red Robin - *http://tinyurl.com/d678c* -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ D''Andrew "Dave" Thompson http://dathompson.blogspot.com

Dear LLVMers, we have released a tool that uses LLVM to insert OpenACC or OpenMP 4.0 directives in programs. You can use the tool online here: http://cuda.dcc.ufmg.br/dawn/. Our tool, dawn-cc, analyzes the LLVM IR to infer the sizes of memory chunks, and to find dependences within loops. After that, we use debug information to translate the low-level information back into annotations that we

Hello I am willing to make changes in Address Sanitizer for experimentation. But as I am a naive user I am confused with the fact that if I make changes to Address Sanitizer do I have to rebuild the whole LLVM. Could somebody please help me figure out a way in which I can make changes to address sanitizer and do not have to compile the whole LLVM. Aayushi Agrawal -------------- next part

This morning I'm seeing 4 new sanitizer failures in SanitizerCommon-Unit (compared to a couple of days ago, when I didn't see these) - perhaps related to recent library refactoring? SanitizerCommon-Unit :: Sanitizer-i386-Test/DeadlockDetector.RemoveEdgesTest SanitizerCommon-Unit :: Sanitizer-i386-Test/SanitizerCommon.ThreadRegistryTest SanitizerCommon-Unit ::

Thank you for the response. Suppose I want to make changes in the LLVM part of Address Sanitizer. Is there still a way to test the changes made to address sanitizer as a standalone. Also can a pass be run after Address Sanitizer Pass is ran, where I can access the variables created by address sanitizer [LLVM Code] so that I avoid making changes directly to the address sanitizer? On Fri, Mar

This bot was failing from http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux/builds/29505 until it went green on http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux/builds/29534 Anyone happen to know why? I can't quite figure it out from the commits - would be good to know if it's a buildbot issue or a genuine LLVM problem that was in the LLVM code and fixed by one of those

> On Sep 1, 2016, at 9:20 PM, Greg Parker <gparker at apple.com> wrote: > >> On Sep 1, 2016, at 9:06 PM, llvm.buildmaster at lab.llvm.org wrote: >> >> The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder sanitizer-x86_64-linux-fast while building llvm. >> Full details are available at: >>

Why does GN bot still send mails? I thought it got fixed? On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 1:44 PM <llvm.buildmaster at lab.llvm.org> wrote: > > The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder sanitizer-x86_64-linux-gn while building llvm. > Full details are available at: > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-gn/builds/1820 > > Buildbot URL:

Hey Alexey, This bot has been failing for a week, by the looks of it - what's the deal? On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 7:31 PM, <llvm.buildmaster at lab.llvm.org> wrote: > The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder sanitizer-x86_64-linux > while building llvm. > Full details are available at: > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux/builds/17810 >

Why is there a public GN buildbot that sends emails and IRC notifications? That isn't what was agreed upon. Either un-GM it, or silence it. Roman. On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 1:05 AM <llvm.buildmaster at lab.llvm.org> wrote: > > The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder sanitizer-x86_64-linux-gn while building llvm. > Full details are available at: >

The following bot is broken: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/builds/4016 because of the following change (SVN r213684): http://reviews.llvm.org/D4614 But it seems to build fine on my machine... I don't know enough about CMake to tell, but that seemed to be a bug/feature in CMake to which needed the work-around. Now, just looks like the work-around is

Hello, I've been looking at ThreadSanitizer in https://github.com/llvm-mirror/compiler-rt and I noticed some Java-related files. Is there a version of ThreadSanitizer build on top of that, which I could use to sanitize my Java programs? I could not find any. I found https://github.com/google/java-thread-sanitizer, which seems to be now abandoned. It used to work with ThreadSanitizer v1. Has

I'm trying to understand why the buildbot sanitizer-ppc64-linux1 fails due to my latest patch. It was in llvm::GlobalValue while the reported failure is: strcspn-2.c.tmp: /home/buildbots/sanitizerslave1/sanitizer-ppc64-1/build/llvm/projects/compiler-rt/test/asan/TestCases/strcspn-2.c:17: int main(int, char **): Assertion `r == sizeof(s1) - 1' failed. where strcspn-2.c (below) tests the

Alexey, I got mail from one of the tsan buildbots, claiming a breakage in tsan tests. But I cannot see anything on the logs it has for the build. http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux/builds/17916/steps/run%2064-bit%20tsan%20unit%20tests/logs/stdio Any ideas? Thanks. Diego. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: <llvm.buildmaster at lab.llvm.org> Date: Wed,

I was recently challenged to correct my package source (rbamtools) because there were issues reported by address sanitizer. Therefore the problem of installing and running instrumented (R +) package code arises. Regrettably up to now, I found no way to use the address sanitizer, neither for a small C-example nor for a new compiled version of R. I get missing `__asan_report_store4' or

I'm sure it's obvious and I'm just blind, but I can't find the relevant part of that build that's showing a crash. Can you help me out? On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Alexey Samsonov <vonosmas at gmail.com> wrote: > +Sergey > > The bot failed on (and looks like it still fails even after LLVM r236877) > on AddressSanitizer-i386-linux ::

Hi all, I have been experiencing the failure of the address sanitizer regression tests for a PPC64 target (Power7 machine). My understanding is that most of the failures are related with the fact the stack is not being dumped. I tried to understand what might be wrong and started by looking into the null_deref.cc test as it hangs during the test run. I observe that after the detection of the