On 8/24/07, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote:> > so how about turning it on? > > It sounds good, but I'm concerned about darwin/x86. Bill, can you see how > well darwin/x86 is doing these days? If there are no regressions from > turning this on by default, we should do it. :) >I'm assuming that this is 4.2? :-) I'll give it a try. -bw
On 8/24/07, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote:> On 8/24/07, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > > > so how about turning it on? > > > > It sounds good, but I'm concerned about darwin/x86. Bill, can you see how > > well darwin/x86 is doing these days? If there are no regressions from > > turning this on by default, we should do it. :) > > > I'm assuming that this is 4.2? :-) I'll give it a try. >I'm trying it on 4.0. On 4.2, I'm getting this problem during bootstrapping: ccAMeZbg.s:111:non-relocatable subtraction expression, "___gxx_personality_v0" minus "L0" ccAMeZbg.s:111:symbol: "___gxx_personality_v0" can't be undefined in a subtraction expression for this reduced testcase: namespace __cxxabiv1 { extern "C" void *__cxa_allocate_exception() throw(); } int bork(void); namespace __gnu_cxx { inline void __throw_concurrence_unlock_error() { } struct __mutex { void unlock() { if (bork() != 0) __throw_concurrence_unlock_error(); } }; } __gnu_cxx::__mutex emergency_mutex; extern "C" void *__cxxabiv1::__cxa_allocate_exception() throw() { emergency_mutex.unlock(); } I've been looking at it, but haven't been able to spend a lot of time on it. -bw
Hi Bill,> I'm trying it on 4.0. On 4.2, I'm getting this problem during bootstrapping: > > ccAMeZbg.s:111:non-relocatable subtraction expression, > "___gxx_personality_v0" minus "L0" > ccAMeZbg.s:111:symbol: "___gxx_personality_v0" can't be undefined in a > subtraction expressionthis is the darwin assembler that barfs, right? It looks like it doesn't like the way the personality function is output in the assembler. If so, you should see exactly the same problem with llvm-gcc-4.0 for any code containing eh constructs. I think Anton is the guy to look into this (CC'd). Ciao, Duncan. PS: 32 bit or 64 bit?
On Friday 24 August 2007 19:51:58 Bill Wendling wrote:> On 8/24/07, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > > > so how about turning it on? > > > > It sounds good, but I'm concerned about darwin/x86. Bill, can you see how > > well darwin/x86 is doing these days? If there are no regressions from > > turning this on by default, we should do it. :) > > > I'm assuming that this is 4.2? :-) I'll give it a try.Actually both - neither creates additional failures in the LLVM testsuite. However the 4.2 version doesn't have *any* gcc eh testsuite failures (except for one that is pending on PR1146) while the 4.0 version does have a few. That said, not all LLVM eh tests pass due to a bug exposed by LTO, but I've just fixed that. Ciao, Duncan.