search for: attachprefixdata

...of our own design. I think that if someone wants a target-independent way of embedding prefix data it should be done as a library on top of the target-dependent facilities provided in IR. One could imagine a set of routines like this: /// Given some constant data, attach valid prefix data. void attachPrefixData(Function *F, Constant *Data); /// Returns an i1 indicating whether prefix data is present for FP. Value *hasPrefixData(Value *FP); /// Returns a pointer to the prefix data for FP. Value *getPrefixDataPointer(Value *FP, Type *DataType); > Forcing clients to embed deep > target-specific-mach...

...that if someone wants a target-independent way of > embedding prefix data it should be done as a library on top of the > target-dependent facilities provided in IR. One could imagine a set > of routines like this: > > /// Given some constant data, attach valid prefix data. > void attachPrefixData(Function *F, Constant *Data); > > /// Returns an i1 indicating whether prefix data is present for FP. > Value *hasPrefixData(Value *FP); > > /// Returns a pointer to the prefix data for FP. > Value *getPrefixDataPointer(Value *FP, Type *DataType); > > > Forcing clients to...

On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk>wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to propose that we introduce a mechanism in IR to allow > arbitrary data to be stashed before a function body. The purpose of > this would be to allow additional data about a function to be looked > up via a function pointer. Two use cases come to mind: > > 1)

Hi, I would like to propose that we introduce a mechanism in IR to allow arbitrary data to be stashed before a function body. The purpose of this would be to allow additional data about a function to be looked up via a function pointer. Two use cases come to mind: 1) We'd like to be able to use UBSan to check that the type of the function pointer of an indirect function call matches the