search for: annotating

Hi, I'm trying to annotate certain functions in C code, and do 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

Hi all, I've also been developing an interest in using IR annotations for my compiler. Some discussion with Bart turns out that he has implemented some code to parse the llvm.globals.annotations array, but in no way integrated or reusable. We've spent some thought about how this could be done properly, which I will share here. Firstly, however, I was wondering about the format of the

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

Hello everyone, I am able to work very well with annotations in C/C++, by using __attribute__((annotate("MYANNOTATION"))) static int a; . Inside the LLVM bytecode I have @llvm.global.annotations and @llvm.var.annotation. However, I was trying to test annotations also in Java, with VMKit. These are the commands that I run: javac -Xlint -g -O Main.java ../Release+Asserts/bin/vmjc Main

Hello Harris, Thank you for your answer. So it is there a way of annotating variables in Java Code, so I can see them into LLVM bytecode? Thank you ! On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Harris BAKIRAS <h.bakiras at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Alexandru, > > No you did nothing wrong. > > We are using our own data structure to describe annotations in J3....

Hello Alexandru, No you did nothing wrong. We are using our own data structure to describe annotations in J3. So it is normal that you can not see your Java annotations inside the LLVM bytecode produced. If I remember well, our implementation of annotations do not rely on LLVM annotations. Regards, Harris Bakiras On 06/17/2013 02:19 PM, Alexandru Ionut Diaconescu wrote: > Hello

...ve the annotation metadata. I think for some transformations the `type` of the annotation does not matter, but for others it might. In those cases having a general way to encode the rules would indeed be very helpful! I think Francis already took a look at some passes that would need updating when annotating auto-init stores. Most of the problematic transforms (like SROA, LoopIdiom and InstCombine) are combining stores to stores of wider types or various mem* intrinsics. As an initial general rule, it probably makes sense to preserve any annotation metadata, if all combined instructions share the same...

Hi, when running the following on a fresh R, library("IRanges") annotation showMethods("annotation") Biobase:::annotation showMethods("annotation") I get (see the "^^^^^" marked output at the bottom): > library("IRanges") Carico il pacchetto richiesto: 'IRanges' The following object(s) are masked from package:base :

What classpath implementation are you using ? GNUClasspath or OpenJDK ? Harris Bakiras On 06/17/2013 03:57 PM, Alexandru Ionut Diaconescu wrote: > Hello Harris, > > Thank you for your answer. So it is there a way of annotating > variables in Java Code, so I can see them into LLVM bytecode? > > Thank you ! > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Harris BAKIRAS <h.bakiras at gmail.com > <mailto:h.bakiras at gmail.com>> wrote: > > Hello Alexandru, > > No you did nothing...

On Jun 25, 2008, at 6:33 AM, Matthijs Kooijman wrote: > Hi all, Howdy Matthijs, > I've also been developing an interest in using IR annotations for my > compiler. > Some discussion with Bart turns out that he has implemented some > code to parse > the llvm.globals.annotations array, but in no way integrated or > reusable. > We've spent some thought about how

Hi all I have a project where LLVM annotations could be very useful. My current understanding of LLVM in general is still limited, hence a nice interface to annotations or sample code that uses annotations would help me to get started. I was wondering what happened to the proposal for a better interface to handling of annotations, which has been discussed in this thread back in July.

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 instructions' textual representation or to reformat for

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

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

...gories", e.g., "replace-by", "moved", "merged-with". It sounds like having a set to express these rules for all kinds of metadata would be useful, not just for !annotation. >> I think Francis already took a look at some passes that would need updating when annotating auto-init stores. Most of the problematic transforms (like SROA, LoopIdiom and InstCombine) are combining stores to stores of wider types or various mem* intrinsics. As an initial general rule, it probably makes sense to preserve any annotation metadata, if all combined instructions share the same...

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

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