[llvm-commits] CVS: llvm-www/pubs/2006-05-24-SAFECode-BoundsCheck.html 2006-05-24-SAFECode-BoundsCheck.pdf

Mon Jun 19 08:01:39 PDT 2006

Changes in directory llvm-www/pubs:

2006-05-24-SAFECode-BoundsCheck.html added (r1.1)
2006-05-24-SAFECode-BoundsCheck.pdf added (r1.1)
---
Log message:

Added SAFECode ICSE paper

---
Diffs of the changes:  (+65 -0)

 2006-05-24-SAFECode-BoundsCheck.html |   65 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2006-05-24-SAFECode-BoundsCheck.pdf  |    0 
 2 files changed, 65 insertions(+)

Index: llvm-www/pubs/2006-05-24-SAFECode-BoundsCheck.html
diff -c /dev/null llvm-www/pubs/2006-05-24-SAFECode-BoundsCheck.html:1.1
*** /dev/null	Mon Jun 19 10:01:37 2006
--- llvm-www/pubs/2006-05-24-SAFECode-BoundsCheck.html	Mon Jun 19 10:01:27 2006
***************
*** 0 ****
--- 1,65 ----
+ <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
+ <html>
+ <head>
+   <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" />
+   <link rel="stylesheet" href="../llvm.css" type="text/css" media="screen" />
+   <title>Backwards-Compatible Array Bounds Checking for C
+         with Very Low Overhead</title>
+ </head>
+ <body>
+ 
+ <div class="pub_title">
+ Backwards-Compatible Array Bounds Checking for C with Very Low Overhead
+ </div>
+ <div class="pub_author">
+   Dinakar Dhurjati and Vikram Adve
+ </div>
+ 
+ <h2>Abstract:</h2>
+ <blockquote>
+ The problem of enforcing correct usage of array and pointer references in C
+ and C++ programs remains unsolved.  The approach proposed by Jones and Kelly
+ (extended by Ruwase and Lam) is the only one we know of that does not require
+ significant manual changes to programs, but it has extremely high overheads of
+ 5x-6x and 11x--12x in the two versions.  In this paper, we describe a
+ collection of techniques that dramatically reduce the overhead of this
+ approach, by exploiting a fine-grain partitioning of memory called Automatic
+ Pool Allocation.  Together, these techniques bring the average overhead checks
+ down to only 12\% for a set of benchmarks (but 69\% for one case).
+ We show that the memory partitioning is key to bringing down this overhead.
+ We also show that our technique successfully detects all buffer overrun
+ violations in a test suite modeling reported violations in some important
+ real-world programs.
+ </blockquote>
+ 
+ <h2>Published:</h2>
+ <blockquote>
+   "Backwards-Compatible Array Bounds Checking for C
+         with Very Low Overhead", Dinakar Dhurjati and Vikram Adve.<br>
+   Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE '06), Shanghai, China, 2006.
+ </blockquote>
+ 
+ <h2>Download:</h2>
+ <ul>
+   <li><a href="2006-05-24-SAFECode-BoundsCheck.pdf"> Backwards-Compatible Array Bounds Checking for C
+         with Very Low Overhead </a> (PDF)</li>
+   <li><a href="2006-05-24-SAFECode-BoundsCheck.ppt"> Backwards-Compatible Array Bounds Checking for C
+         with Very Low Overhead </a> (PPT)</li>
+ </ul>
+ 
+ <h2>BibTeX Entry:</h2>
+ 
+ <pre>
+ @techreport{da06icse,
+   author = {Dinakar Dhurjati and Vikram Adve},
+   title = "{Backwards-Compatible Array Bounds Checking for C with Very Low Overhead}",
+   booktitle = "{Proceedings of the 2006 International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE'06)}",
+   address   = {Shanghai, China},
+   month     = {May},
+   year      = {2006}
+   url       = {http://llvm.org/pubs/2006-05-24-SAFECode-BoundsCheck.html}
+ }
+ </pre>
+ 
+ </body>
+ </html>

Index: llvm-www/pubs/2006-05-24-SAFECode-BoundsCheck.pdf