search for: attributesets

Using the New Attributes Classes Attributes in LLVM have changed in some fundamental ways. It was necessary to do this to support expanding the attributes to encompass more than a handful of attributes --- e.g. command line options. The old way of handling attributes consisted of representing them as a bit mask of values. This bit mask was stored in a "list" structure that was reference

...vision 176874) +++ include/llvm/IR/Function.h (working copy) @@ -181,6 +181,14 @@ AttributeSet::FunctionIndex, N)); } + /// addFnAttr - Add function attributes to this function. + /// + void addFnAttr(StringRef Kind) { + setAttributes( + AttributeSets.addAttribute(getContext(), + AttributeSet::FunctionIndex, Kind)); + } + /// \brief Return true if the function has the attribute. bool hasFnAttribute(Attribute::AttrKind Kind) const { return AttributeSets.hasAttribute(AttributeSet::FunctionIndex, Kind); I...

Hi, I recently upgraded to the latest LLVM build and encountered a problem where the API for Argument::addAttr has changed. Previously it was Argument::addAttr(Attribute A) and I was able to work with this. The latest build has changed the method addAttr so that it requires an AttributeSet argument (Argument::addAttr(AttributeSet AS). I'm not sure how to adjust to this change. The

Very nice! Could we get this write-up added to the sphinx docs? On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> wrote: > Using the New Attributes Classes > > Attributes in LLVM have changed in some fundamental ways. It was necessary > to do > this to support expanding the attributes to encompass more than a handful > of >

On Jan 30, 2013, at 8:20 PM, Christian Schafmeister <chris.schaf at verizon.net> wrote: > > Hi, > > I recently upgraded to the latest LLVM build and encountered a problem where the API for Argument::addAttr has changed. > > Previously it was Argument::addAttr(Attribute A) and I was able to work with this. > > The latest build has changed the method addAttr so

Hello! clang defines some AttributeSet, for example: attributes #0 = { nounwind uwtable "less-precise-fpmad"="false" "no-frame-pointer-elim"="true" "no-frame-pointer-elim-non-leaf"="true" "no-infs-fp-math"="false" "no-nans-fp-math"="false" "unsafe-fp-math"="false"

LLVM's Attribute APIs need an overhaul. Current problems ================ First, testing for an attribute on an Argument is slow. llvm::AttributeSet::getAttributes(int) consumed 2% of cycles while optimizing llc during LTO. Our mid-level optimizations are constantly asking if a given argument has some attribute (nonnull, dereferencable, etc), and this is currently linear in the size of the

Hi all, Is there an efficient way to construct an AttributeSet for the purpose of constructing a Function? The only (public) way I've found to designate the parameter index of attributes is via the addAttribute methods of the Function class or the AttributeSet. This is quite inefficient as a new AttributeSet is constructed every time. In fact, it takes the bulk of the time my codegen

On Sep 3, 2013, at 9:04 AM, Raul Fernandes Herbster <raulherbster at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello! > > clang defines some AttributeSet, for example: > > attributes #0 = { nounwind uwtable "less-precise-fpmad"="false" "no-frame-pointer-elim"="true" "no-frame-pointer-elim-non-leaf"="true"

On Feb 7, 2013, at 6:23 PM, 陳韋任 (Wei-Ren Chen) <chenwj at iis.sinica.edu.tw> wrote: > Hi Bill, > > Just my 2 cents. How about sent a "HEADS UP" message to the ML > before you make changes. You can say "Hey, if you're using those > API I am going to change, please wait until I say everything is > stable." I think David can wait until you say the

...until release 4.0).) And yes the documentation is also in flux. It has been improving over time. The thing you quoted above is perhaps the worst comment from the Attributes.h file, and isn't indicative of the rest of the comments in there, which have been changing during the rewrite. -bw P.S. AttributeSets don't allow duplicates. :)

On 5 Feb 2013, at 01:32, Bill Wendling wrote: > No. It hasn't been written up. We typically don't do write-ups for API changes. However, we do list the thing we do change in the ReleaseNotes (these changes haven't made it there though). The attributes API has undergone a horrendous amount of churn over the last few months, both before and after the 3.2 release. I've lost

On Feb 8, 2013, at 12:59 AM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > On 7 Feb 2013, at 22:25, Bill Wendling wrote: > >>>> You don't understand what I'm saying. The APIs were changing way too quickly for it to make sense to create such a document. I tried as best as I could to mitigate all of the problems, but there were several intermediate steps

> On Jul 14, 2015, at 4:48 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > > This sounds more like a use case for metadata. Can we attach metadata to function arguments, or does that not work currently? We can’t, no. I have an out of tree patch which allows metadata in AttributeSets. This would also potentially also work here. However, depending on the number of unique strings/metadata in AttributeSets, this could get large. I don’t think we’ve ever had more that a few unique AttributeSets in an entire module. If you have too many different strings then you could have a si...

On Feb 7, 2013, at 12:14 AM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > On 6 Feb 2013, at 20:20, Bill Wendling wrote: > >> You don't understand what I'm saying. The APIs were changing way too quickly for it to make sense to create such a document. I tried as best as I could to mitigate all of the problems, but there were several intermediate steps that had

> However, we do list the thing we do change in the ReleaseNotes Unfortunately this doesn't actually seem to be the case. -- Sean Silva

Hi Bill, Just my 2 cents. How about sent a "HEADS UP" message to the ML before you make changes. You can say "Hey, if you're using those API I am going to change, please wait until I say everything is stable." I think David can wait until you say the changes are done and done, please sync with TOT. How about that, David? Regards, chenwj -- Wei-Ren Chen (陳韋任)

On Feb 6, 2013, at 2:02 AM, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: > Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> writes: > > [snip] > >> Welcome to living on the top-of-tree! :-) >> >> We are in between releases. It's expected that the APIs will be >> unstable. [snip] > > One thing is an unstable API, and a different thing is a code base

This addition converts strlen() calls to strnlen() when the result is compared to a constant. For example, the following: strlen(s) < 5 Becomes: strnlen(s, 5) < 5 That way, we don't have to walk through the entire string. There is the added overhead of maintaining a counter when using strnlen(), but I thought I'd start with the general case. It may make sense to only use this

On 6 Feb 2013, at 20:20, Bill Wendling wrote: > You don't understand what I'm saying. The APIs were changing way too quickly for it to make sense to create such a document. I tried as best as I could to mitigate all of the problems, but there were several intermediate steps that had to happen before the attributes classes were in a proper state for the new feature work. The typical way