|
Dear All,
We have a new release of Clang with SAFECode technology for detecting memory safety errors. Memory safety checking (SAFECode for short) can be turned on with a single command line switch to clang/clang++. The SAFECode techniques do not change the behavior of the clang/clang++ compilers in any way when the switch is turned off, so this can be used as a drop-in replacement for clang/clang++. Clang with SAFECode has the following advantages over tools such as Valgrind: o) It is faster since it does not use dynamic binary translation and can optimize away some run-time checks. o) It is more accurate since it knows the boundaries of individual stack and global objects (Valgrind's ptrcheck tool needs to use heuristics to find these boundaries). o) It provides better error diagnostics that give more useful information about each memory safety violation. The current release primarily detects dereferences of pointers that are generated from buffer overflows. There are many features from the LLVM 2.7 version of SAFECode that we are updating to work with LLVM mainline and will be incorporating into our version of Clang soon. These features include: o) Detecting invalid memory accesses (e.g., dangling pointer dereferences) o) Detecting invalid calls to free() o) Detecting uses of uninitialized pointers o) Detecting memory errors caused by misuse of C standard library functions o) Several optimizations, including type-safe load/store check removal and a loop hoisting optimization Clang with SAFECode is available for download either in source form for Linux and Mac OS X or as a pre-built Mac OS X binary at http://sva.cs.illinois.edu/downloads.html. The source code is also available directly from our SAFECode Subversion repository; download directions are given on the web page above. We're very interested in feedback (positive, negative, or otherwise). Regards, John Criswell _______________________________________________ cfe-dev mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev |
|
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 7:56 AM, John Criswell <[hidden email]> wrote: Dear All, John, Do you have performance figures for SAFECode, e.g. on Spec CPU2006 or similar benchmarks? Valgrind shows 20x on CPU2006, DrMemory shows 10x (http://groups.csail.mit.edu/commit/papers/2011/bruening-cgo11-drmemory.pdf).
AddressSanitizer (which finds a different set of bugs compared to Valgrind/DrMemory, but very similar to SAFECode) has less than 2x overhead (http://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/wiki/PerformanceNumbers).
Thanks, --kcc o) It is more accurate since it knows the boundaries of individual stack _______________________________________________ cfe-dev mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev |
| Powered by Nabble | Edit this page |
