similar to: [Compiler-rt][SafeStack] Request to merge a patch to 3.8.1

Approved. On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 5:09 AM, Mohit Bhakkad <mohit.bhakkad at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Peter, > > Request you to approve the merger of this patch to 3.8.1 branch: > > http://reviews.llvm.org/rL263001 > > Thanks, > Mohit > -- -- Peter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

I am trying to build compiler-rt on a x86_64 machine using clang. Command used: CC=clang CXX=clang++ cmake <path to compiler-rt> -DLLVM_CONFIG_PATH=<Path to llvm toolchain>/bin/llvm-config -DCOMPILER_RT_INSTALL_PATH=<Path to llvm toolchain>/lib/clang/3.7.0 after this command on console it prints, -- Compiler-RT supported architectures: x86_64 Instead if I use gcc in above

Hi all, Shouldn't SafeStack pass be executed only if the target has TLS support? E.g. currently for NVPTX there is no way to implement `__safestack_unsafe_stack_ptr`. Any comments? Thanks, Samuel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150623/53f40bea/attachment.html>

Hi R list, I would like to automate, or speed up the process from which I take several separate datasets, stored in .csv formate, import and merge them by a common variable. So far I have greatly sped up the loading process but cannot think of a way to automate the merger of all datasets into a common data.frame. My apologies if this has been covered, any R search suggestions are

Hi, I would like to use SafeStack sanitize option on ARM platform. Since Linux libc does not implement such functionality (in opposite to FreeBSD or Android), I need to use SafeStack compiler RT library. Unfortunately I've noticed that libclang_rt.safestack is not compiled/built for ARM platform. Looking into cmake file: "set(ALL_SAFESTACK_SUPPORTED_ARCH ${X86} ${X86_64} ${ARM64}

Hi Kostya, >On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 2:50 AM, Volodymyr Kuznetsov <vova.kuznetsov at epfl.ch >> wrote: > >> Dear LLVM developers, >> >> We've applied the feedback we received on Phabricator on the SafeStack >> patches, >> > >Did you investigate the possibility of moving the transformation from >codegen to the LLVM level, i.e. the same level

On 12/28/18 10:09 PM, Leonard Chan via llvm-dev wrote: > Hello, > > I'm in the process of creating a pass for the new PM for SafeStack > which is only available as a part of the legacy PM. The only thing > bugging me is in regards to the TargetPassConfig analysis. Whereas > most other passes/analyses I have seen separate the logic between the > actual pass and anything it

+nlewycky On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Volodymyr Kuznetsov <vova.kuznetsov at epfl.ch > wrote: > Hi Kostya, > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Volodymyr Kuznetsov < > vova.kuznetsov at epfl.ch> wrote: > > Do you think moving the pass to lib/Transform/Instrumentation but > > scheduling it during code generation would make sense ? If so, we'll >

Hi, SafeStack currently relies on address randomization to protect the safe stack. If the location of a safe stack is somehow revealed and a corrupted pointer references it, then a safe stack can be corrupted. The creators of SafeStack envisioned the possibility of using X86 segmentation to further harden SafeStack against such corruption (see the comment near the top of

Hello, I'm in the process of creating a pass for the new PM for SafeStack which is only available as a part of the legacy PM. The only thing bugging me is in regards to the TargetPassConfig analysis. Whereas most other passes/analyses I have seen separate the logic between the actual pass and anything it does to the IRUnits it runs over are in 2 separate classes, TargetPassConfig has them

On 2/7/2017 20:02, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > ... > > My understanding is that BNDCU is the cheapest possible instruction, > just like XOR or ADD, > so the overhead should be relatively small. > Still my guesstimate would be >= 5% since stores are very numerous. > And such overhead will be on top of whatever overhead SafeStack has. > Do you have any measurements to

On 4 Nov 2014, at 00:36, Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote: > You at least increase the memory footprint by doubling the stack sizes. Not quite. The space overhead is constant for each stack frame - you just need to keep track of the top of two stacks, rather than one. The important overhead is that you reduce locality of reference. You will need a minimum of two cache

All, Chris Lattner and I had a recent discussion about merging the HLVM (http://hlvm.org/) and LLVM (http://llvm.org/) projects. We agreed in principle and the merging of the two projects will now commence. This merger makes sense for both projects. LLVM needs to expand into the realm of front end tool kits. HLVM provides LLVM with some initial front-end capabilities. Since HLVM uses LLVM and

On 08/02/2012 11:11 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: >> A new self-contained `LibCallSimplifier` class will be created. An instance >> of the class will be instantiated when running the `InstCombiner` pass. It's >> folding functionality will be invoked from `InstCombiner::tryOptimizeCall` and >> the implementation will be table-driven like `SimplifyLibCalls`. All of the

Hi, I had downlaoded iaxclient-2.0.2 and complie project *\iaxclient-2.0.2\contrib\win\vs2005* ** It gives many83 fatal and file missing error of file missing Error 1 fatal error C1083: Cannot open include file: 'portaudio.h': No such file or directory d:\mohit\asterisk\iaxclient-2.0.2\iaxclient-2.0.2\lib\portmixer\px_win_wmme\px_win_wmme.c 40 Error 2 fatal error C1083: Cannot open

More top posting goodness... Please post your updated dialplan. After making the change, did you reload/restart Asterisk so the changes would take effect? --Tim ----- "Mohit Saxena" <MohitS at starcomms.com> wrote: > Still no luck.... > > Br, > Mohit > > -----Original Message----- > From: asterisk-users-bounces at lists.digium.com >

On Aug 3, 2012, at 12:56 PM, Meador Inge <meadori at codesourcery.com> wrote: >>> An option for enabling/disabling library call simplification in `InstCombiner` >>> will be available. For backwards compatibility perhaps it should remain >>> '-simplify-libcalls'. The `NumSimplified` and `NumAnnotated` statistics shall >>> be added to

I think everyone shares your concerns. But there are no rules that the outcome of this merger must get something bad, so let's see what happens. I hope that it's true what Timo said and that dovecot can evolve and get even better as it is today. Good luck guys! Regards, Adrian. On 23.03.15 15:08, Andreas Kasenides wrote: > I find it extremely interesting that no one has commented on

Has anyone had stability issues with IAX2. (Asterisk 1.0.5). reddwarf*CLI> iax2 show firmware Device Version Size iaxy 22 39344 I'm asking because in the last three weeks I've noticed the following two issues (on separate occasions): 1) Placed a phone call. Asterisk logs show the phone being answered and various files being Played back. But

I find it extremely interesting that no one has commented on the merger of Dovecot Oy and Open-Xchange AG as announced by Timo on the 19th. Is this something that was known a long time ago and I missed? OK checked the on-line archive of the mailing list, no comments there - its not my email set-up - LOL. I am usually emotionally (at least) against of open-source projects loosing their