Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "anntoat".
Did you mean:
annotat
2006 Feb 25
3
[LLVMdev] Re: gcc like attributes and annotations
...nnotations are simple or can be composite simple types
and people should be encouraged to store data in a way, that makes it
possible to read it without library code. If you just serialize C++
structs, you end up relying heavy on the code that wrote it. Which makes
it harder for tools to introspect anntoations. Java's annotations rely
on simple types for the same principle and I think it is the right way
for most things. There could be an opaque type for more complex
information, which should be discouraged.
This would also make it possible to have tripple of
Value,AnnotationType,Name to match t...
2006 Feb 25
0
[LLVMdev] Re: gcc like attributes and annotations
...e or can be composite simple types
> and people should be encouraged to store data in a way, that makes it
> possible to read it without library code. If you just serialize C++
> structs, you end up relying heavy on the code that wrote it. Which makes
> it harder for tools to introspect anntoations. Java's annotations rely
> on simple types for the same principle and I think it is the right way
> for most things. There could be an opaque type for more complex
> information, which should be discouraged.
>
> This would also make it possible to have tripple of
> Value,A...
2006 Feb 24
0
[LLVMdev] Re: gcc like attributes and annotations
Hi Jakob,
I have some thoughts on this too ..
On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 19:56 +0100, Jakob Praher wrote:
> I get you 100 % here. But as you say later in the mail, many information
> is done by some runtime std::map<Value*,foo> stuff. Which is really
> handy at runtime, but I *had* serialization in mind when I was thinking
> about Annotations. I see annotations as a way to serialize
2006 Feb 26
1
[LLVMdev] Re: gcc like attributes and annotations
...composite simple types
>>and people should be encouraged to store data in a way, that makes it
>>possible to read it without library code. If you just serialize C++
>>structs, you end up relying heavy on the code that wrote it. Which makes
>>it harder for tools to introspect anntoations. Java's annotations rely
>>on simple types for the same principle and I think it is the right way
>>for most things. There could be an opaque type for more complex
>>information, which should be discouraged.
>>
>>This would also make it possible to have tripple...
2006 Feb 24
5
[LLVMdev] Re: gcc like attributes and annotations
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