similar to: [GSOC] "Project: Improve inter-procedural analyses and optimisations"

Hi Fahad, > > Improve dynamic memory related capabilities of Attributor. For example > Improve HeapToStackConversions. Maybe such deductions can help safety > (dis)provers. For example, can we improve the use-after-free bug detection > using some attributes? > Stefan should know more about H2S. Regarding the use-after-free, I don't > think there's currently any plans

Hi Farad, > I tried to do this for the NoUnwind attribute Hmm, I don't have experience with this attribute but it seems like a good starting point since it doesn't do much. First of all, be sure that you run with: opt -passes=attributor -attributor-disable=false This uses the new pass manager which is another discussion. Now, to the point: If you open nounwind.ll, it has a bunch of

On 03/16, Fahad Nayyar wrote: > I can see that Johanned have put up some issues for GSOC aspirants. I think > that [2] <https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/179> ([Attributor] > Cleanup and upstream `Attribute::MaxObjectSize`) will be a very good issue > for me, It seems doable and I can get familiar with the whole process of > writing a patch for an issue. How should I

After I spend some time working with the function attribute* deduction pass** [1,3], I would like to propose a "proper" organization***. Why? Because we do not derive nearly as many attributes as we could****, while we do maintain various (separate and diffently organized) "data-flow-like analyses" to do so. What else? I propose a single optimistic data-flow

I am a grad CS student at Stanford and wanted to engage with EJ Park, Giorgis Georgakoudis, Johannes Doerfert to further develop the Machine Learning and Compiler Optimization concept. My background is in machine learning, cluster computing, distributed systems etc. I am a good C/C++ developer and have a strong background in algorithms and data structure. I am also taking an advanced compiler

Hi Johannes - great we are engaging on this. Some responses now and some later. 1. When you say setup LLVM dev environment +. clang + tools etc, do you mean setup LLVM compiler code from the repo and build it locally? If so, yes, this is all done from my end - that is, I have built all this on my machine and compiled and run a couple of function passes. I have look at some LLVM emits from clang

1. Thanks for the clarifications. I will stick to non-containerized OS X for now. 2. As an aside, I did try to build a Debian docker container by git cloning into it and using the Dockerfile in LLVM/utils/docker as a starting point: - some changes needed to updated packages (GCC in particular needs to be latest) and the Debian image (Debian 9 instead of Debian 8) pretty much sets up the docker

Hi Johannes: 1. Attached is the submitted PDF. 2. I have a notes section where I state: I am still unsure of the GPU extension I proposed as I dont know how LLVM plays into the GPU cross over space like how nvcc (Nvidia's compiler integrates gcc and PTX) does.I dont know if there is a chance that function graphs in the CPU+GPU name spaces are seamless/continupus within nvcc or if nvcc is just

Hi Johannes. My name is Hideto Ueno. I’m interested in working on GSoC project, “Improve (function) attribute inference”. As far as I see [0] and related patches, you have already implemented algorithms for many of the deducible function attributes with the new framework “Attributor”. I doubt whether there is still room for improvement as a GSoC project. If there is, let me know. Thanks.

Hi Johannes, >> Not sure the semantics of "used" you propose is sufficient. AFAIU the >> proposal, "used" could only be used in cases where the function will >> always trigger UB if poison is passed as argument. The semantics of >> attributes is usually the other way around, since function calls need >> to have UB as strong as the worst

I think calling the attribute "used" is confusing. I'd suggest the following: "not_poison": If an argument is marked not_poison, and the argument is poison at runtime, the call is instant UB. Whether an argument is poison is checked after the rules for other attributes like "nonnull" and "align" are applied. This makes it clear that the IR semantics

Hi all , does Kernel 2.4 supports CBQ and HTB by default or we have to recompile it. Regards Fahad Khan _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:25 PM Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > > Hal Finkel wrote: > > > But it is not all optimizations that are the problem. Rather, it > > seems like a select few (e.g. things involving collapsing allowed > > non-determinism in atomics), and losing those optimizations seems > > better than generally losing

Not sure the semantics of "used" you propose is sufficient. AFAIU the proposal, "used" could only be used in cases where the function will always trigger UB if poison is passed as argument. The semantics of attributes is usually the other way around, since function calls need to have UB as strong as the worst behavior of the function. If a function may for some reason trigger

Hi László, On 8/13/20 5:21 PM, László Radnai via llvm-dev wrote: > (Sorry I clicked reply instead of reply to all) > I'm fighting with my email client, I hope the quoted text contains > what I want it to contain. > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: László Radnai <radlaci97 at gmail.com> > Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2020 00:11:35 +0200 > Subject:

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com> > To: "Sanjoy Das" <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com>, "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Philip Reames" <listmail at philipreames.com>, "Duncan P. N. Exon Smith" >

On Sun, 23 Apr 2006, Reid Spencer wrote: >> Has it been hooked up to a JVM? If so, how and which ones? > > I think the point of llvm-java was to avoid a JVM. That is, it converts llvm-java is the JVM. > either Java source or Java bytecode into equivalent LLVM bytecode. I llvm-java only supports input from Java bytecode. > think the big thing lacking so far are the Java

Chris Lattner wrote: >> I think the point of llvm-java was to avoid a JVM. That is, it converts > > llvm-java is the JVM. > >> either Java source or Java bytecode into equivalent LLVM bytecode. I > > llvm-java only supports input from Java bytecode. > >> think the big thing lacking so far are the Java library and support for > > llvm-java uses

hi all when i m trying to save my tags.this error s cmng........cn anybody help me to how to save the array error depicting = undefined method `save'' for []:Array --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to

When somebody call me on my pstn # cable connected to my fxo card it does not work when I check my computer the following error shows Connected to Asterisk CVS-v1-0-12/05/04-19:46:25 currently running on asterisk1 (pid = 2160) Verbosity is atleast 3 -- Remote UNIX connection -- Starting simple switch on 'Zap/1-1' == Starting Zap/1-1 at incoming,s,1 failed so falling