search for: annotated

...something with these functions in my LLVM pass. I annotate the C code like this: int __attribute__((annotate("annot"))) function() { This nicely gets added to the LLVM bitcode in an @llvm.global.annotations global. Now I had hoped that it'd be easy to extract a list of functions annotated with my annotation using AnnotationManager::getID("annot") and later on: function->getAnnotation(AnnotID). This does not seem to work, unfortunately. Is this supposed to work in this way, or am I using the wrong functions? I could of course just try to manually parse the @llvm.glob...

...r itself, parsing the llvm.global.annotations variable and adding annotations to the corresponding GlobalValues. This would just leave the annotations in the IR as well, so that transformation passes would properly preserve them (and, just like debug info, sometimes be prevented from modifying some annotated global values unless they are taught how to preserve the annotations). By using a subclass of Annotation (say, GlobalAnnotation) we can distinguish between annotations that are (or should be) in the IR and (the existing) annotations that should be in memory only. This would also allow for newly ad...

I'm seeing a segfault on x86_64 Linux with the following code: desc = read.dcf("BAD") con = gzfile("test.gz", "wt") write.dcf(desc, file=con) close(con) where BAD has a long field (see below for example). The crash happens inside dummy_vfprintf. I think the issue is that the va_list ap is modified by the first vsnprintf call

...n.ElementType; import java.lang.annotation.Retention; import java.lang.annotation.RetentionPolicy; import java.lang.annotation.Target; import java.lang.reflect.Method; @Target(ElementType.METHOD) @Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME) @interface Red { String info() default ""; } class Annotated { @Red(info = "AWESOME") public void foo(String myParam) { System.out.println("This is " + myParam); } } class TestAnnotationParser { public void parse(Class clazz) throws Exception { Method[] methods = clazz.getMethods(); for (Method met...

...; import java.lang.annotation.RetentionPolicy; > import java.lang.annotation.Target; > import java.lang.reflect.Method; > > @Target(ElementType.METHOD) > @Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME) > @interface Red { > String info() default ""; > } > > > class Annotated { > @Red(info = "AWESOME") > public void foo(String myParam) { > System.out.println("This is " + myParam); > } > } > > > class TestAnnotationParser { > public void parse(Class clazz) throws Exception { > Method[] meth...

...; import java.lang.annotation.RetentionPolicy; > import java.lang.annotation.Target; > import java.lang.reflect.Method; > > @Target(ElementType.METHOD) > @Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME) > @interface Red { > String info() default ""; > } > > > class Annotated { > @Red(info = "AWESOME") > public void foo(String myParam) { > System.out.println("This is " + myParam); > } > } > > > class TestAnnotationParser { > public void parse(Class clazz) throws Exception { > Method[] meth...

> On Nov 6, 2020, at 17:32, Johannes Doerfert <johannesdoerfert at gmail.com> wrote: > > Cool! I really like the idea. I left a comment about metadata preservation below. > Once this is available we will certainly employ it to understand OpenMP programs better. That sounds like a great use case! Having multiple different uses cases during the bring-up would be very helpful to

...es" function (x, ...) standardGeneric("annotation") <environment: 0x1a302b0> Methods may be defined for arguments: x Use showMethods("annotation") for currently available ones. > showMethods("annotation") Function: annotation (package IRanges) x="AnnotatedList" > Biobase:::annotation standardGeneric for "annotation" defined from package "Biobase" function (object) standardGeneric("annotation") <environment: 0x205cee0> Methods may be defined for arguments: object Use showMethods("annotation") f...

....annotation.Target; >> import java.lang.reflect.Method; >> >> @Target(ElementType.METHOD) >> @Retention(RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME) >> @interface Red { >> String info() default ""; >> } >> >> >> class Annotated { >> @Red(info = "AWESOME") >> public void foo(String myParam) { >> System.out.println("This is " + myParam); >> } >> } >> >> >> class TestAnnotationParser { >> public void...

...ions > variable and > adding annotations to the corresponding GlobalValues. This would > just leave the > annotations in the IR as well, so that transformation passes would > properly > preserve them (and, just like debug info, sometimes be prevented from > modifying some annotated global values unless they are taught how to > preserve > the annotations). Makes sense. This is similar to how the MachineDebugInfo stuff deserializes debug info out of the LLVM IR and presents it for easy consumption of the code generator. > By using a subclass of Annotation (say...

...ions > variable and > adding annotations to the corresponding GlobalValues. This would > just leave the > annotations in the IR as well, so that transformation passes would > properly > preserve them (and, just like debug info, sometimes be prevented from > modifying some annotated global values unless they are taught how to > preserve > the annotations). > > By using a subclass of Annotation (say, GlobalAnnotation) we can > distinguish > between annotations that are (or should be) in the IR and (the > existing) > annotations that should be in me...

hi Chris! thanks for your reply. First of all I did not know about the history with the Annotation stuff. Annotable for me was a way how one could realize this things. So as I see it right now - it is more that Annotable will completly vanish soon. This is interesting to me. Chris Lattner schrieb: > On Fri, 24 Feb 2006, Jakob Praher wrote: > >> When translating a complex c

The following is a brief proposal for annotated assembly (and disassembly) output. Kevin Enderby and I have been discussing this a bit and are interested in getting broader feedback from interested folks. LLVM Rich Assembly Output LLVM's (dis)assembly output is currently very raw. Consumers have limited ability to introspect the instru...

hi all, out of a matter of fact I am still using llvm version 1.5. I don't know how 1.6 works in this matter. When translating a complex c application to llvm bytecodes, some semantics are lost: Take for isntance the interesting attribute to put a variable in the thread local data section (.tdata), this would be interesting to have in llvm. like in GCC you write: int x

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006, Jakob Praher wrote: > out of a matter of fact I am still using llvm version 1.5. I don't know > how 1.6 works in this matter. ok. > When translating a complex c application to llvm bytecodes, some > semantics are lost: > > Take for isntance the interesting attribute to put a variable in the > thread local data section (.tdata), this would be

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:32:05 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > This is a batch of patches touching drm for preparing for the coming > implementation by GCC and Clang of the __counted_by attribute. Flexible > array members annotated with __counted_by can have their accesses > bounds-checked at run-time checking via CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS (for array > indexing) and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE (for strcpy/memcpy-family functions). > > As found with Coccinelle[1], add __counted_by to structs that would > benefit from the a...

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:32:05 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > This is a batch of patches touching drm for preparing for the coming > implementation by GCC and Clang of the __counted_by attribute. Flexible > array members annotated with __counted_by can have their accesses > bounds-checked at run-time checking via CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS (for array > indexing) and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE (for strcpy/memcpy-family functions). > > As found with Coccinelle[1], add __counted_by to structs that would > benefit from the a...

> On Nov 9, 2020, at 19:27, Johannes Doerfert <johannesdoerfert at gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/9/20 5:09 AM, Florian Hahn wrote: >> >>> On Nov 6, 2020, at 17:32, Johannes Doerfert <johannesdoerfert at gmail.com <mailto:johannesdoerfert at gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Cool! I really like the idea. I left a comment about metadata preservation

On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:32:05 -0700, Kees Cook wrote: > This is a batch of patches touching drm for preparing for the coming > implementation by GCC and Clang of the __counted_by attribute. Flexible > array members annotated with __counted_by can have their accesses > bounds-checked at run-time checking via CONFIG_UBSAN_BOUNDS (for array > indexing) and CONFIG_FORTIFY_SOURCE (for strcpy/memcpy-family functions). > > As found with Coccinelle[1], add __counted_by to structs that would > benefit from the a...

How can they processed? I cant seem to find any solid information about how they exist in IR form from a Passes perspective. I see things like @llvm.var.annotation in dumps but no relevant sounding methods to get at these. Thank you On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Julien Lerouge <jlerouge at apple.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 02:46:05AM -0400, Mark Brown wrote: > > With