Hey Martin,
Thanks a lot for the info. I tried to play with __sanitizer_cov_trace_pc
but still quite confused on whether it can instrument extra basic blocks
introduced by ASAN. Let me present the GIMPLE code for your reference:
Given the following C code:
int main(int argc ,char **argv)
{
On Wed, 2020-06-17 at 15:10 +0800, Shuai Wang via Gcc wrote:
> Dear Martin,
>
> Thanks for the information. I am tentatively experimenting some random
> gadgets; given the critical if condition belonging to each sanitizer check,
> i will do some data flow analysis and then decide whether to remove
Dear Jakub and all,
When handling loop nests whose loop bounds are linearly depending on
outer loop iterators and size parameters, it is known that the number of
iterations is a specific kind of polynomial of the size parameters, also
called an Ehrhart polynomial.
I have recently published a
Hi!
On 5/25/20 2:56 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>> I'm thinking about attempting to do the CC0 transition for the
>> AVR port in my spare time. I've read the CC0Transition gcc wiki
>> page, and as the AVR ISA does not have non-condition-code
>> clobbering arithmetic instructions, conclud
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 02:29:40PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> So this remembers me of the loop scalarization pass Sebastian once
> implemented - that is, with the above constraints it looks like we
> can do the actual collapsing, replacing collapsed loops with a new
> one with a canonical IV fr
On Tue, 16 Jun 2020, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Before OpenMP 5.0, all OpenMP loop nests had to be rectangular (and OpenMP
> has various other restrictions that make implementation easier), so that it
> was very easy to compute the number of iterations of the collapsed loop
> by computing num
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 4:11 AM Shuai Wang via Gcc wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Suppose I have changed certain if condition in the GIMPLE code (generated
> by the `sanopt` pass) into the following format:
>
> if (0 == 1)
> {
>
> }
>
> Then, in order to completely remove this unnecessary if condit
On 6/17/20 9:10 AM, Shuai Wang wrote:
Dear Martin,
Thanks for the information. I am tentatively experimenting some random gadgets;
given the critical if condition belonging to each sanitizer check, i will do
some data flow analysis and then decide whether to remove that check or not
(done). I
Dear Martin,
Thanks for the information. I am tentatively experimenting some random
gadgets; given the critical if condition belonging to each sanitizer check,
i will do some data flow analysis and then decide whether to remove that
check or not (done). If so, I will rewrite that if condition into
On 6/17/20 9:00 AM, Shuai Wang wrote:
Dear Martin,
Thanks for the kind reply.
Hey.
You're welcome.
I don't have a strong preference between `asan0` vs. `sanopt`. But I note that
I am primarily working on sanitizer enabled code, where I can only find some
.ASAN_CHECK function calls in `asa
On 6/17/20 8:57 AM, Shuai Wang wrote:
Hello Martin,
The issue is that I want to count the coverage of "true/false" branches taken
in sanitizer's if conditions..
I see. Well, you may abuse a bit the existing:
-fsanitize-coverage=trace-pc
Enable coverage-guided fuzzing code i
Dear Martin,
Thanks for the kind reply. I don't have a strong preference between `asan0`
vs. `sanopt`. But I note that I am primarily working on sanitizer enabled
code, where I can only find some .ASAN_CHECK function calls in `asan0`, but
those function calls seem have been inlined in `sanopt`. In
12 matches
Mail list logo
