search for: annotation

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 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...

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...

...alloc = TRUE; b = R_alloc(res + 1, sizeof(char)); And here is an example BAD file, but I'm pretty sure any DCF field with a very long value would trigger it: Description: The package provides and API in R to query BioMart system which produces and maintains automatic annotation on system which produces and maintains automatic annotation on system which produces and maintains automatic annotation on system which produces and maintains automatic annotation on system which produces and maintains automatic annotation on system which pro...

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...

...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. 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 Io...

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 everyone, &...

...sounds like a great use case! Having multiple different uses cases during the bring-up would be very helpful to make sure the system is flexible enough. > We could also think about a user facing version of this while we are at it ;) > Do you mean providing a way for users to add their own annotation to say C/C++ code? The initial patch contains a Annotation2Metadata pass, which converts Clang annotations (` __attribute__((annotate("_name”))` ) to `!annotation` metadata. This allows users to use something like the snippet below, to annotate all instructions in a function by piggybacking...

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...

...> > 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 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...

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 this could be done properly, > which I will >...

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, whi...

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 applic...

...ruction text. For clients like disassemblers, list file generators, and pretty-printers, more is necessary than the raw instructions and the ability to print them. The intent is for the vast majority of the new functionality to not require new APIS, but to be in the assembly text itself via markup annotations. The markup is simple enough in syntax to be robust even in the case of version mismatches between consumers and producers. That is, the syntax generally does not carry semantics beyond "this text has an annotation," so consumers can simply ignore annotations they do not understand or do...

...a symbolic type which could look like: { ("x",int) } One could use the DEF/USE and operand information in the byte code to know which symbolic field was accessed for instance through getelementptr. I don't know how you feel about that, but I there would be many circumstances where Annotations could help getting more information out of the bytecode. thanks in advance -- Jakob

...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 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. These annotations would get stale and not be updated correctly. The problem is basically that adding annotations really amounts to extending the LLVM IR, and making it look like something simple doesn't make it easier to deal with. For example, if you add an "I'm special" attribute to an inst...

...d 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 annotation. > > [...] Since this got Acks, I figure I should carry it in my tree. Let me know if this should go via drm instead. Applied to for-next/hardening, thanks! [1/9] drm/amd/pm: Annotate struct smu10_voltage_dependency_table with __counted_by https://git.kernel.org/kees/c/a6046ac659d6...

...d 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 annotation. > > [...] Since this got Acks, I figure I should carry it in my tree. Let me know if this should go via drm instead. Applied to for-next/hardening, thanks! [1/9] drm/amd/pm: Annotate struct smu10_voltage_dependency_table with __counted_by https://git.kernel.org/kees/c/a6046ac659d6...

...les, ..., are generated and how many survive. > > That sounds like it this should fit in nicely (hopefully) :) >> >>> We could also think about a user facing version of this while we are at it ;) >>> >> Do you mean providing a way for users to add their own annotation to say C/C++ code? >> >> The initial patch contains a Annotation2Metadata pass, which converts Clang annotations (` __attribute__((annotate("_name”))` ) to `!annotation` metadata. This allows users to use something like the snippet below, to annotate all instructions in a function...

...d 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 annotation. > > [...] Since this got Acks, I figure I should carry it in my tree. Let me know if this should go via drm instead. Applied to for-next/hardening, thanks! [1/9] drm/amd/pm: Annotate struct smu10_voltage_dependency_table with __counted_by https://git.kernel.org/kees/c/a6046ac659d6...

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 recent work a plugin can now Annotate a VarDecl at the AST lev...