Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "statemetns".
Did you mean:
statements
2006 Feb 24
5
[LLVMdev] Re: gcc like attributes and annotations
...format. It gives people the freedom to add some
extra information. This is also interesting since changing the
bytecode/adding fields to Value/... is often not a real option since one
wants to work with production core libraries. (like I do now).
Perhaps the thing could be solved by adding policy statemetns to
annotations. I could imagine the inventor of an Annotation should think
about how the annotation should behave during optimisation/change. So
the anntation should have a policy field which defaults to DontCare. In
that case the user of the Annotation cannot be sure that it will get
retained or s...
2006 Mar 01
0
[LLVMdev] Re: gcc like attributes and annotations
...e freedom to add some
> extra information. This is also interesting since changing the
> bytecode/adding fields to Value/... is often not a real option since one
> wants to work with production core libraries. (like I do now).
Okay.
> Perhaps the thing could be solved by adding policy statemetns to
> annotations. I could imagine the inventor of an Annotation should think
> about how the annotation should behave during optimisation/change. So
> the anntation should have a policy field which defaults to DontCare. In
> that case the user of the Annotation cannot be sure that it wi...
2006 Feb 24
0
[LLVMdev] Re: gcc like attributes and annotations
...the freedom to add some
> extra information. This is also interesting since changing the
> bytecode/adding fields to Value/... is often not a real option since one
> wants to work with production core libraries. (like I do now).
>
> Perhaps the thing could be solved by adding policy statemetns to
> annotations. I could imagine the inventor of an Annotation should think
> about how the annotation should behave during optimisation/change. So
> the anntation should have a policy field which defaults to DontCare. In
> that case the user of the Annotation cannot be sure that it wi...
2006 Feb 24
0
[LLVMdev] gcc like attributes and annotations
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006, Jakob Praher wrote:
> out of a matter of fact I am still using llvm version 1.5. I don't know
> how 1.6 works in this matter.
ok.
> When translating a complex c application to llvm bytecodes, some
> semantics are lost:
>
> Take for isntance the interesting attribute to put a variable in the
> thread local data section (.tdata), this would be
2006 Feb 24
2
[LLVMdev] gcc like attributes and annotations
hi all,
out of a matter of fact I am still using llvm version 1.5. I don't know
how 1.6 works in this matter.
When translating a complex c application to llvm bytecodes, some
semantics are lost:
Take for isntance the interesting attribute to put a variable in the
thread local data section (.tdata), this would be interesting to have in
llvm.
like in GCC you write:
int x