search for: attributelist

...to make custom pragma to mark certain region of code and pass this information to LLVM, in the similar way that '#pragma clang loop unroll_count(N)' works. By tracking the framework of loop unroll pragma, I found out it works in the way below. (1) Detect pragma at lexer, parser. (2) Create AttributeList and push it into AST. (3) Once AST is built, consume AST and generate LLVM IR at CodeGeneration (4) If attribute for loop unroll is found, put tag on LLVM IR with Meta data which indicates whether to unroll loop. Now I can detect my own pragma and figured it out how to create and tag custom metada...

...nd > pass this information to LLVM, in the similar way that '#pragma clang loop > unroll_count(N)' works. > > > > By tracking the framework of loop unroll pragma, I found out it works in > the way below. > > (1) Detect pragma at lexer, parser. > > (2) Create AttributeList and push it into AST. > > (3) Once AST is built, consume AST and generate LLVM IR at CodeGeneration > > (4) If attribute for loop unroll is found, put tag on LLVM IR with Meta > data which indicates whether to unroll loop. > > > > Now I can detect my own pragma and figure...

...egion of code and pass this information to LLVM, in the similar way that '#pragma clang loop unroll_count(N)' works. > > > > By tracking the framework of loop unroll pragma, I found out it works in the way below. > > (1) Detect pragma at lexer, parser. > > (2) Create AttributeList and push it into AST. > > (3) Once AST is built, consume AST and generate LLVM IR at CodeGeneration > > (4) If attribute for loop unroll is found, put tag on LLVM IR with Meta data which indicates whether to unroll loop. > > > > Now I can detect my own pragma and figured it...

...etail of lib/IR is problematic. This type describes all of the attributes on an individual argument, return value, or function, which IPO transforms often want. Today the getFnAttributes, getRetAttributes, and getParamAttributes APIs find the relevant AttributeSetNode* and wrap it in a new, uniqued AttributeListImpl. This requires callers to keep around the index of the extracted attributes so they can look through the wrapper list. If we make AttributeSetNode public, we can simplify a lot of IPO transform code. Naming ====== The naming of today's APIs is confusing. I'll try to explain what the c...

...bsolutely no idea how to do that. I looked at others handler but none seems to do that. I also tried to use handleSimpleAttribute, but it doesn’t work either. >> >> Any idea how to do that (or enable annotate on ObjC method)? > > handleSimpleAttribute takes the parsed attribute (AttributeList entry) > and turns it into a semantic attribute (Attr subclass). You have to > manually handle the semantic attribute in whatever way makes sense for > your attribute. Check out CodeGenModule::ConstructAttributeList for an > example of how function semantic attributes translate into IR...

Hi, I want to *tag* some functions with some *flags*. I was using annotate((“myFlag”)) and everything was working fine until I tried on ObjC method. It seems that clang just ignore it. So, to be able to *flag* my functions I’m trying to add a *real* attribute to clang. I’ve added a new attribute to clang in tools/clang/include/clang/Basic/Attr.td: def NoFLA : Attr { let Spellings =

...g::OpaquePtr<clang::DeclGroupRef>&) 5. clang::Parser::ParseDeclaration(unsigned int, clang::SourceLocation&, clang::Parser::ParsedAttributesWithRange&) 6. clang::Parser::ParseDeclarationStartingWithTemplate(unsigned int, clang::SourceLocation&, clang::AccessSpecifier, clang::AttributeList*) 7. clang::BackendConsumer::HandleTranslationUnit(clang::ASTContext&) 8. clang::EmitBackendOutput(clang::DiagnosticsEngine&, clang::CodeGenOptions const&, clang::TargetOptions const&, clang::LangOptions const&, llvm::DataLayout const&, llvm::Module*, clang::BackendAction,...

...r this to be that LLVMGetParams() [and its cognates] all use Function::arg_iterator, which begins with the first function *argument* parameter and not the return parameter. The index argument to LLVMGetParams() is actually incremented by one when it's mapped to the index used for the Function::AttributeList member. There are separate functions for the function attributes, which are at index ~0UL, but no similar functions for handling the function return parameter attribute at index zero. Is this intentional? What is the correct way to get and set a function return parameter attribute with C-languag...

...does treat them as a bit mask to use the new query methods on the Attribute class. This should be straight forward. If there is missing functionality on the Attribute class, which you feel should be there, please let me know about it. The next class is the AttributeSet class. This replaces the old AttributeList class. The AttributeSet stores a collection of Attribute objects for each kind of object that may have an attribute associated with it: the function as a whole, the return type, or the function's parameters. A function's attributes are at index "AttributeSet::FunctionIndex"; the r...

...r this to be that LLVMGetParams() [and its cognates] all use Function::arg_iterator, which begins with the first function *argument* parameter and not the return parameter. The index argument to LLVMGetParams() is actually incremented by one when it's mapped to the index used for the Function::AttributeList member. There are separate functions for the function attributes, which are at index ~0UL, but no similar functions for handling the function return parameter attribute at index zero. > > Is this intentional? What is the correct way to get and set a function return parameter attribute with...

everyone-- Is it my imagination, or is there no way in LLVM 2.8 (or current trunk) to use the facilities defined in <llvm-c/Core.h> to get or set the optional return parameter attribute on a function value? All the functions in the "Operations on parameters" parameters section actually seem to work only on the function arguments and not the return parameter. Is this intentional?

Hi James, > Is it my imagination, or is there no way in LLVM 2.8 (or current trunk) to use the facilities defined in<llvm-c/Core.h> to get or set the optional return parameter attribute on a function value? > > All the functions in the "Operations on parameters" parameters section actually seem to work only on the function arguments and not the return parameter. Is this

...oints(mergedis$jit.x.x, mergedis$pre.fsa.shp.Y2) grd1 <- GridTopology(cellcentre.offset=c(50281627.2, 580082), cellsize=c(0.2, 0.2), cells.dim=c(75,100)) k1000 <- spkernel2d(cases1.xy, coord, h0=1000, grd1) k5000 <- spkernel2d(cases1.xy, coord, h0=5000, grd1) if (.sp_lt_0.9()) { df <- AttributeList(list(k1000=k1000, k5000=k5000)) } else { df <- data.frame(k1000=k1000, k5000=k5000) } kernels <- SpatialGridDataFrame(grd1, data=df) spplot(kernels, checkEmptyRC=FALSE, col.regions=terrain.colors(16), cuts=15) Using this code, I get NAs for all values of k1000 and k5000. If this did work,...

...e new query > methods on the Attribute class. This should be straight forward. If there > is > missing functionality on the Attribute class, which you feel should be > there, > please let me know about it. > > The next class is the AttributeSet class. This replaces the old > AttributeList > class. The AttributeSet stores a collection of Attribute objects for each > kind > of object that may have an attribute associated with it: the function as a > whole, the return type, or the function's parameters. A function's > attributes > are at index "AttributeS...

...../../recurse2be/build/./tools/clang/lib/AST/Release+Asserts/Expr.o differ: byte 177340, line 236 ./tools/clang/lib/AST/Release+Asserts/MicrosoftCXXABI.o ../../recurse2be/build/./tools/clang/lib/AST/Release+Asserts/MicrosoftCXXABI.o differ: byte 7864, line 14 ./tools/clang/lib/Sema/Release+Asserts/AttributeList.o ../../recurse2be/build/./tools/clang/lib/Sema/Release+Asserts/AttributeList.o differ: byte 94793, line 191 ./tools/clang/lib/Sema/Release+Asserts/SemaDecl.o ../../recurse2be/build/./tools/clang/lib/Sema/Release+Asserts/SemaDecl.o differ: byte 538096, line 952 ./tools/clang/lib/Sema/Release+Assert...

On 29 July 2011 12:48, Dan Bailey <dan at dneg.com> wrote: > I'm not going to comment on the syntax of any of the proposals made, just > dispute that they don't provide sufficient value to make them worth > introducing. Hi Dan, I've read the arguments on both sides and I have to say I'm with Chris on this one. I normally keep GDB running with my debug image. After

...t()), /* actual 1 type */ IntegerType::get(M.getContext(), 32), NULL); } if ( !f ) { errs() << "### Error: No matched function\n"; } #endif #if 0 // f = M.getOrInsertFunction(StringRef Name, FunctionType *T, AttrListPtr AttributeList); #endif // set the calling convention to C. // so, we interoperate with C Code properly. // Function *tmp = cast<Function>(f); // tmp->setCallingConv(CallingConv::C); Function *tmp = cast<Function>(Fn); tmp->setCallingConv(CallingConv::C); return tru...

There are two 64-bit bitmasks maintained in AttributeImpl.h<https://sdocc.itg.ti.com/ui#file:review=11893/version=393846>: - AvailableFunctionAttrs is part of the AttributeListImpl class, and - AvailableAttrs is part of the AttributeSetNode class Both of these assume that the number of available enum attributes is limited to 64. In fact, a static_assert in Attributes.cpp<https://sdocc.itg.ti.com/ui#file:review=11893/version=393848> enforces that the number of enum...

...;__attribute__((objc_gc(weak)))"); diff --git a/lib/Sema/SemaDeclAttr.cpp b/lib/Sema/SemaDeclAttr.cpp index 1b04e52..e8656ec 100644 --- a/lib/Sema/SemaDeclAttr.cpp +++ b/lib/Sema/SemaDeclAttr.cpp @@ -4593,6 +4593,9 @@ static void ProcessDeclAttribute(Sema &S, Scope *scope, Decl *D, case AttributeList::AT_ScopedLockable: handleSimpleAttribute<ScopedLockableAttr>(S, D, Attr); break; + case AttributeList::AT_NoSafeStack: + handleSimpleAttribute<NoSafeStackAttr>(S, D, Attr); + break; case AttributeList::AT_NoSanitizeAddress: handleSimpleAttribute<NoSanitizeAd...

I attempted the following: resources { service: purge => true, noop => true } service { sshd: ensure => running; iptables ensure => running; } And got the following message: notice: Starting configuration run err: Found a bug: uninitialized constant Parse notice: Finished configuration run in 0.47 seconds When I remove the ''resources'' line, everything works