similar to: [LLVMdev] Using annotation attributes

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

On Jun 25, 2008, at 6:33 AM, Matthijs Kooijman wrote: > Hi all, Howdy Matthijs, > 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

Hi all I have a project where LLVM annotations could be very useful. My current understanding of LLVM in general is still limited, hence a nice interface to annotations or sample code that uses annotations would help me to get started. I was wondering what happened to the proposal for a better interface to handling of annotations, which has been discussed in this thread back in July.

> 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

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

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,

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>

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

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

> 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: >>

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

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

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

The following is a brief proposal for annotated assembly (and disassembly) output. Kevin Enderby and I have been discussing this a bit and are interested in getting broader feedback from interested folks. LLVM Rich Assembly Output LLVM's (dis)assembly output is currently very raw. Consumers have limited ability to introspect the instructions' textual representation or to reformat for

How is the client supposed to make use of this markup information? At first glance it seems like client code will just devolve into a pile of regex insanity. Why not use an existing standardized markup, like XML (not that I'm that fond of XML)? At a higher level, why not expose an API for iterating over (potentially annotated) tokens which can be programmatically inspected. So what you expose

Hi Sean, Thanks for the feedback! Exactly the sort of discussion I was hoping to get started. On Oct 12, 2012, at 10:12 AM, Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> wrote: > How is the client supposed to make use of this markup information? Target-independent introspection of the assembly. A simple example is color-coded output in a GUI disassembly display. All registers show up one color,

Hello everyone ! I followed http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4976298/modern-equivalent-of-llvm-annotationmanagerin order to get annotations from my target bytecode. All the examples that I give in the following is related to the code from that link. I have `__attribute__((annotate("DS"))) int f=0;` into the target C++ program and the related IR code: @.str = private unnamed_addr