llvm dev - Sep 2010 - [LLVMdev] LLVM Exception Handling

Ok, I see it. Works for me.

On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Renato Golin <rengolin at
systemcall.org>wrote:
> On 26 September 2010 22:11, Nathan Jeffords <blunted2night at
gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > The "exception" value will *always* be i8*, it is not
possible for it to
> be
> > anything different.
> > In the end, this a minor parser detail and it is not terribly
important
> to
> > me one way or the other.
>
> I know, it is rather silly. It has more to do with debugging front-end
> code than syntactic or semantics.
>
> When building PHI nodes, I often found that I was trying to join
> different types. The assert tells me that the types are different, but
> obviously not which types I was joining (only the value and basic
> block).
>
> Normally, I would see the values and understand instantly what was
> going wrong, but if you don't have the types explicitly, you have to
> remember (or read the docs) to know what that type really is and then,
> understand what you failed to do. As I said, this is a very minor
> issues.
>
>
> --
> cheers,
> --renato
>
> http://systemcall.org/
>
> Reclaim your digital rights, eliminate DRM, learn more at
> http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100926/e55d5c86/attachment.html>

How about this syntax:

invoke @method(i32 %arg)
  ret i32 %return_value to label %success_branch
unwind i8* %exception_pointer to label %error_branch

this makes the instruction self consistent, and self documenting
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100926/5de04087/attachment.html>

On 27 September 2010 01:12, Nathan Jeffords <blunted2night at gmail.com>
wrote:
> How about this syntax:
> invoke @method(i32 %arg)
>   ret i32 %return_value to label %success_branch
> unwind i8* %exception_pointer to label %error_branch
> this makes the instruction self consistent, and self documenting
I like it.

What if the function returns void? Would you omit the whole type+value?

-- 
cheers,
--renato

http://systemcall.org/

Reclaim your digital rights, eliminate DRM, learn more at
http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm