search for: metadatum

Hi everybody, Is there a clean way to attach metadata nodes to Arguments and/or BasicBlocks? It looks to me like one can directly attach metadata only to instructions. My current workaround is to insert a call to a dummy function that holds metadata for its parent block - pretty ugly, but manageable. The same problem arises when I want to store specific information about the arguments of a

...gt; problem arises when I want to store specific information about the > arguments of a function. > > Does anybody have a suggestion how I could do this more elegantly? Maybe you could take the address of the basic block (using blockaddress), and use that as an argument for a module level metadatum. Ciao, Duncan.

...ople would like to have more than compiler > flags to control fp accuracy and ready to deal with pragmas (when they are > available). there is no increase in bitcode size if you don't use this feature. If more options are added it will hardly increase the bitcode size: there will be one metadatum with lots of options (!0 = metadata !{ this, that, other }), and instructions just have a reference to it. So the size increase isn't like (number of options) * (number of instructions), it is (number of options) + (number of instructions). > And, again, I think this should be function lev...

On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 1:02 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Dmitry, > > > The kinds of transforms I think can reasonably be done with the current >> information are things like: x + 0.0 -> x; x / constant -> x * (1 / >> constant) if >> constant and 1 / constant are normal (and not denormal) numbers. >> >> The

Hi Dmitry, > The kinds of transforms I think can reasonably be done with the current > information are things like: x + 0.0 -> x; x / constant -> x * (1 / constant) if > constant and 1 / constant are normal (and not denormal) numbers. > > > The particular definition is not that important, as the fact that this > definition exists :) I.e. I think we need a