similar to: [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

hi Chris! thanks for your reply. First of all I did not know about the history with the Annotation stuff. Annotable for me was a way how one could realize this things. So as I see it right now - it is more that Annotable will completly vanish soon. This is interesting to me. Chris Lattner schrieb: > On Fri, 24 Feb 2006, Jakob Praher wrote: > >> When translating a complex c

> thanks for your reply. Sorry for the delay, I've been buried in email lately. >>> When translating a complex c application to llvm bytecodes, some >>> semantics are lost: >>> >> LLVM 1.6 and the "new front-end" already handle this right. Here's the >> bugzilla bug corresponding to it: >>

Hi Jakob, I have some thoughts on this too .. On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 19:56 +0100, Jakob Praher wrote: > I get you 100 % here. But as you say later in the mail, many information > is done by some runtime std::map<Value*,foo> stuff. Which is really > handy at runtime, but I *had* serialization in mind when I was thinking > about Annotations. I see annotations as a way to serialize

Hi Reid, Reid Spencer schrieb: > I have some thoughts on this too .. > Great! > On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 19:56 +0100, Jakob Praher wrote: > >>I get you 100 % here. But as you say later in the mail, many information >>is done by some runtime std::map<Value*,foo> stuff. Which is really >>handy at runtime, but I *had* serialization in mind when I was thinking

Hi, As far as I know, Instruction class does not inherit "Annotable" Class. Only Function inherits annotable according to the documentation of annotable class. What you are asking would require adding annotations at instruction level, which does not seem to be possible. You can maintain external maps between instructions and your annotations, --Kapil On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 7:17 PM,

This is a interesting thread. I think this would also help with compiling scripting languages such as JavaScript/Python etc. We could keep the high level meta data and runtime binding info as language specific bytecode in the file and just have the parts that are easy to represent as compileable in the main object sections. There is no intrinsic reason for all the runtime type information to get

Hello together, how can i insert annotations in IR ? I want actually write something like: CallInst *call = CallInst::Create( ??? , aBasicBlock); in my pass. Regards Raad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090305/cd1db761/attachment.html>

Hi, I'm trying to annotate certain functions in C code, and do something with these functions in my LLVM pass. I annotate the C code like this: int __attribute__((annotate("annot"))) function() { This nicely gets added to the LLVM bitcode in an @llvm.global.annotations global. Now I had hoped that it'd be easy to extract a list of functions annotated with my annotation

Hi all, I've also been developing an interest in using IR annotations for my compiler. Some discussion with Bart turns out that he has implemented some code to parse the llvm.globals.annotations array, but in no way integrated or reusable. We've spent some thought about how this could be done properly, which I will share here. Firstly, however, I was wondering about the format of the

Hello everyone, I am able to work very well with annotations in C/C++, by using __attribute__((annotate("MYANNOTATION"))) static int a; . Inside the LLVM bytecode I have @llvm.global.annotations and @llvm.var.annotation. However, I was trying to test annotations also in Java, with VMKit. These are the commands that I run: javac -Xlint -g -O Main.java ../Release+Asserts/bin/vmjc Main

Hello Harris, Thank you for your answer. So it is there a way of annotating variables in Java Code, so I can see them into LLVM bytecode? Thank you ! On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Harris BAKIRAS <h.bakiras at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Alexandru, > > No you did nothing wrong. > > We are using our own data structure to describe annotations in J3. So it > is normal

Hello Alexandru, No you did nothing wrong. We are using our own data structure to describe annotations in J3. So it is normal that you can not see your Java annotations inside the LLVM bytecode produced. If I remember well, our implementation of annotations do not rely on LLVM annotations. Regards, Harris Bakiras On 06/17/2013 02:19 PM, Alexandru Ionut Diaconescu wrote: > Hello

Chris Lattner schrieb: > On Aug 21, 2009, at 3:04 AM, Marc Brünink wrote: >>> This isn't really possible. The issue is that MemDep doesn't just >>> "analyze your function". It is designed to be as lazy as possible, >>> which means that it only does analysis when a query is performed. This >>> means that if you have

What classpath implementation are you using ? GNUClasspath or OpenJDK ? Harris Bakiras On 06/17/2013 03:57 PM, Alexandru Ionut Diaconescu wrote: > Hello Harris, > > Thank you for your answer. So it is there a way of annotating > variables in Java Code, so I can see them into LLVM bytecode? > > Thank you ! > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Harris BAKIRAS

Chris Lattner schrieb: > > On Aug 20, 2009, at 11:44 AM, Marc Brünink wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I do have a FunctionPass that does change the code. This FunctionPass >> requires another FunctionPass which performs all the necessary analyses. >> This AnalysisPass again requires MemoryDependenceAnalysis. >> >> The problem is, that I would like

1. If we run a few passes in a sequence ..is the bytecode file transformed after each pass in sequence i.e if we have a) opt -pass1 -pass2 -pass3 < in.bc > out.bc b)opt -pass1 -pass2 < in.bc > tmp.bc opt -pass3 < tmp.bc > out.bc are the above two equivalent ? what I basically want is to run my pass on an optimised bytecode , so should i optimize it and get a new bytecode

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Marc Brünink<marc at bruenink.de> wrote: >>> actually my problem is easier. So I still have hope that it is possible: >>> >>> MemDep->Pass1->Pass2 >>> >>> Pass1 uses MemDep. Pass2 only uses Pass1. Eventually, Pass2 changes the >>> code. Unfortunately, non-local dependencies of MemDep might point to

On Aug 21, 2009, at 3:04 AM, Marc Brünink wrote: >> This isn't really possible. The issue is that MemDep doesn't just >> "analyze your function". It is designed to be as lazy as possible, >> which means that it only does analysis when a query is performed. >> This >> means that if you have MemDep->Pass1->Pass2 and Pass2 uses MemDep

Hi, I do have a FunctionPass that does change the code. This FunctionPass requires another FunctionPass which performs all the necessary analyses. This AnalysisPass again requires MemoryDependenceAnalysis. The problem is, that I would like MemoryDependenceAnalysis to run on the unaltered module. I do not want to have dependencies to changed code. What is the cleanest way to do this? Sounds