similar to: [LLVMdev] Inserting annotations

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,

Ok, but what about a pass like alias-analysis. How are the results stored, so that other passes can use them. -Raad ________________________________ From: Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> To: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 9:52:58 AM Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] information-transfer between analysis-pases On Tue, Feb 17,

Hello together, I have seen that the analysis-results are stored in llvm-IR as annotations. For example <; preds = %entry> in basicBlock level and <; <i32*> [#uses=2]> for a variable. Is there any documentation about annotations? Regards Raad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hello together, although i use the "-O0" flag as follow, the llvm perform dead code elimination. How can i disable optimizing completely? KR Raad llvm-gcc -O0 -emit-llvm main.cpp -S -o main.s -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20081127/c4ef8aac/attachment.html>

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 12:46 AM, RAAD B <raad_7007 at yahoo.com> wrote: > Hello together, > > I have seen that the analysis-results are stored in llvm-IR as annotations. > For example <; preds = %entry> in basicBlock level and <; <i32*> [#uses=2]> > for a variable. > > Is there any documentation about annotations? That isn't really analysis;

On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 6:14 AM, RAAD B <raad_7007 at yahoo.com> wrote: > Hello together, > > although i use the "-O0" flag as follow, the llvm perform dead code > elimination. > How can i disable optimizing completely? Sorry, it's not possible; the gcc front-end does some optimizations which the LLVM backend can't do anything about, and dead code

These are the contents of the generated file. Start >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ; ModuleID = '<stdin>' target datalayout =

Hi, how can I create the IR-representation from multiple source-files? Regards Raad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090415/9040f657/attachment.html>

Hi Duncan, thanks for the answer. But "opt -load ..../Decorator.so -dec <prog.bc> new_prog.bc" creates an invalid file. When i use "lli", i get "lli: error loading program 'new_prog.bc': Invalid bitcode signature" I have done the followings: 1) used "opt -p -load ..../Decorator.so -dec <prog.bc> new_prog.bc" 2) copied the output

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 Eli, I want to disable optimizations because, i'm going to implement a framework in JAVA for educational purposes. I have planned to do followings: 1) Create LLVM-IR and export it as Assembly (without optimizing the source-code) 2) Transform the LLVM-Assembly to a data-structure, similar to LLVM data structure (Module, Function, BB ...) but implemented in Java 3) Optimizing

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, take a look inside the file new_prog.bc. How does it start? Ciao, Duncan.

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

Hi, Chris Lattner wrote: > I'd suggest writing a little pass that strips out debug intrinsics. > OK, I did this and it works (the strange seg fault also disappears after all declared debug variables are gone)! In a first phase, all intrinsic instructions are discarded after extracting their data into annotations attached to the relevant Function. Then, a second phase wipes out the

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

I recently updated my Rannotate application. The interface has been completely redone and there are lots of new features. The basic idea is to create searchable and user annotatable documentation for the Ruby on Rails API (think php.net). Check it out at - http://rails.outertrack.com * What is Rannotate? Rannotate is a Rails application and RDoc YAML generator that work together to provide

> 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 Devang, GlobalModRefPass is also a ModulePass and it uses CallGraph Analysis. So, I think it should not necessary to extend CallGraphSCCPass to use CallGraph information. Module Pass shoule be sufficient... --Kapil On 10/8/08, Devang Patel <dpatel at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Kapil, > > On Oct 8, 2008, at 10:19 AM, kapil anand wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I