search for: annotatinon

...-S) does not show anything like this attribute. There is this Annotable base class, which is used to annotate a MachineFunction to a LLVM Function. Function support Annotable but GlobalVariable as of 1.5 not. I would generally be interested and could contribute to extending LLVM by allowing more Annotatinons than currently possible. Why not make things like Instructions Annotable too? For instance pointer creating Instructions, like alloca, malloc, .. would be nice if they could be Annotable and so one could add symbolic information to the type beeing used. For instance: struct A { int x; }; st...

...show_bug.cgi?id=659 > There is this Annotable base class, which is used to annotate a > MachineFunction to a LLVM Function. Function support Annotable but > GlobalVariable as of 1.5 not. > > I would generally be interested and could contribute to extending LLVM > by allowing more Annotatinons than currently possible. > > Why not make things like Instructions Annotable too? > For instance pointer creating Instructions, like alloca, malloc, .. > would be nice if they could be Annotable and so one could add symbolic > information to the type beeing used. At one point in ti...

...well? Did you think about a mapping of common attributes on different platforms. For instance DLLMain Entry point under Win32 and the __attribute__((constructor)) under Linux. > >> >> I would generally be interested and could contribute to extending LLVM >> by allowing more Annotatinons than currently possible. Okay so I am on quite the opposite attitude than the LLVM team towards that issue :-) > > At one point in time, Value was annotatable. The problem with this was > two fold: > > 1. This bloat every value in the system, by adding an extra pointer. > 2....

...der Win32 and the > __attribute__((constructor)) under Linux. __attribute__((constructor)) is handled with a the llvm.globalctors global variable (even with llvm 1.6), try it out. >>> I would generally be interested and could contribute to extending LLVM >>> by allowing more Annotatinons than currently possible. > Okay so I am on quite the opposite attitude than the LLVM team towards > that issue :-) I don't follow. >> At one point in time, Value was annotatable. The problem with this was >> two fold: >> >> 1. This bloat every value in the sys...