thr3ads.net - llvm dev - [LLVMdev] RFC: How to represent SEH (__try / _

If this information is useful, please help other people find it:
Share via:

Reid Kleckner

2014-Nov-10 22:07 UTC

[LLVMdev] RFC: How to represent SEH (try / except) in LLVM IR

Moving this month old RFC to llvmdev. Not sure why I sent this to cfe-dev
in the first place...

---

Based on code review discussion from John, he thinks filter expressions
should be emitted into the body of the function with the try, rather than
being outlined by the frontend.

Instead of having the frontend create filter functions, we would use labels
in place of typeinfo. The IR would look like "landingpad ... catch label
%filter0 ..." instead of "landingpad ... catch ... @filter_func0
...".
There would be a backend pass similar to SjLjEHPrepare that would outline
the filter function and cleanup actions. Once we do the outlining, there is
no turning back, because the outlined function has to know something about
the stack layout of the parent function. If the parent function is inlined,
we would have to duplicate the filter function along with it.

Given that we want this kind of outlining to handle cleanups, it shouldn't
be difficult to use the same machinery for filter expressions.

The IR sample for safe_div at the end of my RFC would look like this
instead:

define i32 @safe_div(i32 %n, i32 %d) {
entry:
  %d.addr = alloca i32, align 4
  %n.addr = alloca i32, align 4
  %r = alloca i32, align 4
  store i32 %d, i32* %d.addr, align 4
  store i32 %n, i32* %n.addr, align 4
  invoke void @try_body(i32* %r, i32* %n.addr, i32* %d.addr)
          to label %__try.cont unwind label %lpad

filter:
  %eh_code = call i32 @llvm.eh.seh.exception_code() ; or similar
  %cmp = icmp eq i32 %eh_code, 0xC0000094
  %r = zext i1 %cmp to i32
  call void @llvm.eh.seh.filter(i32 %r)

lpad:
  %0 = landingpad { i8*, i32 } personality i8* bitcast (i32 (...)*
@__C_specific_handler to i8*)
          catch label %filter
  store i32 0, i32* %r, align 4
  br label %__try.cont

__try.cont:
  %2 = load i32* %r, align 4
  ret i32 %2
}

define internal void @try_body(i32* %r, i32* %n, i32* %d) {
entry:
  %0 = load i32* %n, align 4
  %1 = load i32* %d, align 4
  %div = sdiv i32 %0, %1
  store i32 %div, i32* %r, align 4
  ret void
}

On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote:
> I want to add SEH support to Clang, which means we need a way to represent
> it in LLVM IR.
>
> Briefly, this is how I think we should represent it:
> 1. Use a different landingpad personality function for SEH
> (__C_specific_handler / _except_handlerN)
> 2. Use filter function pointers in place of type_info globals
> 3. Outline cleanups such as destructors and __finally on Windows, and
> provide a function pointer to the landingpad cleanup clause
>
> See the example IR at the end of this email. Read on if you want to
> understand why I think this is the right representation.
>
> ---
>
> Currently LLVM's exception representation is designed around the
Itanium
> exception handling scheme documented here:
> http://mentorembedded.github.io/cxx-abi/abi-eh.html
>
> LLVM's EH representation is described here, and it maps relatively
cleanly
> onto the Itanium design:
> http://llvm.org/docs/ExceptionHandling.html
>
> First, a little background about what __try is for. It's documented
here:
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/swezty51.aspx
>
> The __try construct exists to allow the user to recover from all manner of
> faults, including access violations and integer division by zero.
> Immediately, it's clear that this is directly at odds with LLVM IL
> semantics. Regardless, I believe it's still useful to implement __try,
even
> if it won't behave precisely as it does in other compilers in the
presence
> of undefined behavior.
>
> ---
>
> The first challenge is that loads in C/C++ can now have exceptional
> control flow edges. This is impossible to represent in LLVM IR today
> because only invoke instructions can transfer control to a landing pad. The
> simplest way to work around this is to outline the body of the __try block
> and mark it noinline, which is what I propose to do initially.
>
> Long term, we could lower all potentially trapping operations to
> intrinsics that we 'invoke' at the IR level. See also Peter
Collingbourne's
> proposal for iload and istore instructions here (
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2014-April/071732.html).
>
> With the outlining approach, in addition to noinline, we need to invent
> another function attribute to prevent functionattrs from inferring nounwind
> and readonly, or the optimizers will delete the invoke unwind edge or
> entire call site.
>
> ---
>
> The next challenge is actually catching the exception. The __except
> construct allows the user to evaluate a (mostly) arbitrary expression to
> decide if the exception should be caught. Code generated by MSVC catches
> these exceptions with an exception handler provided by the CRT. This
> handler is analogous to personality functions (__gxx_personality_v0) in
> LLVM and GCC, so that's what I call it.
>
> Notably, SEH and C++ exceptions use *different* personality functions in
> MSVC, and each function can only have one personality function. This is the
> underlying reason why one cannot mix C++ EH (even C++ RAII!) and __try in
> the same function with MSVC. Hypothetically, there is no reason why one
> could not have a more powerful personality function that handles both types
> of exception, but I intend to use the personality function from the CRT
> directly for the time being.
>
> On x86_64, the SEH personality function is called __C_specific_handler. On
> x86, it is __except_handler4 (or 3), but it's similar to
> __C_specific_handler and doesn't change how we should represent this in
IR.
>
> The personality function interprets some side tables similar to the
> Itanium LSDA to find the filter function pointers that must be evaluated to
> decide which except handler to run at a given PC. The filter expressions
> are emitted as separate function bodies that the personality function
> calls. If a filter function returns '1', that indicates which
except block
> will perform the recovery, and phase 1 of unwinding ends, similar to
> Itanium EH.
>
> I propose we represent this in IR by:
> 1. changing the personality function to __C_specific_handler,
> __except_handler4, or in the future something provided by LLVM
> 2. replacing the type_info globals we currently put in landing pads with
> pointers to filter functions
>
> Then, in llvm/lib/CodeGen/AsmPrinter/EHStreamer.cpp where we currently
> emit the LSDA for Itanium exceptions, we can emit something else keyed off
> which kind of personality function we're using.
>
> ---
>
> SEH also allows implementing cleanups with __finally, but cleanups in
> general are implemented with a fundamentally different approach.
>
> During phase 2 of Itanium EH unwinding, control is propagated back up the
> stack. To run a cleanup, the stack is cleared, control enters the landing
> pad, and propagation resumes when _UnwindResume is called.
>
> On Windows, things work differently. Instead, during phase 2, each
> personality function is invoked a second time, wherein it must execute all
> cleanups *without clearing the stack* before returning control to the
> runtime where the runtime continues its loop over the stack frames. You can
> observe this easily by breaking inside a C++ destructor when an exception
> is thrown and taking a stack trace.
>
> MinGW's Win64 "SEH" personality function finesses this issue
by taking
> complete control during phase 2 and following the Itanium scheme of
> successive stack unwinding. It has the drawback that it's not really
ABI
> compatible with cleanups emitted by other compilers, which I think should
> be a goal for our implementation.
>
> It might be possible to do something similar to what MinGW does, and
> implement our own __gxx_personality* style personality function that
> interprets the same style of LSDA tables, but we *need* to be able to
> establish a new stack frame to run cleanups. We cannot unwind out to the
> original frame that had the landing pad.
>
> In the long term, I think we need to change our representation to
> implement this. Perhaps the cleanup clause of a landing pad could take a
> function pointer as an operand. However, in the short term, I think we can
> model this by always catching the exception and then re-raising it.
> Obviously, this isn't 100% faithful, but it can work.
>
> ---
>
> Here’s some example IR for how we might lower this C code:
>
> #define GetExceptionCode() _exception_code()
> enum { EXCEPTION_INT_DIVIDE_BY_ZERO = 0xC0000094 };
> int safe_div(int n, int d) {
>   int r;
>   __try {
>     r = n / d;
>   } __except(GetExceptionCode() == EXCEPTION_INT_DIVIDE_BY_ZERO) {
>     r = 0;
>   }
>   return r;
> }
>
> define internal void @try_body(i32* %r, i32* %n, i32* %d) {
> entry:
>   %0 = load i32* %n, align 4
>   %1 = load i32* %d, align 4
>   %div = sdiv i32 %0, %1
>   store i32 %div, i32* %r, align 4
>   ret void
> }
>
> define i32 @safe_div(i32 %n, i32 %d) {
> entry:
>   %d.addr = alloca i32, align 4
>   %n.addr = alloca i32, align 4
>   %r = alloca i32, align 4
>   store i32 %d, i32* %d.addr, align 4
>   store i32 %n, i32* %n.addr, align 4
>   invoke void @try_body(i32* %r, i32* %n.addr, i32* %d.addr)
>           to label %__try.cont unwind label %lpad
>
> lpad:                                             ; preds = %entry
>   %0 = landingpad { i8*, i32 } personality i8* bitcast (i32 (...)*
> @__C_specific_handler to i8*)
>           catch i8* bitcast (i32 (i8*, i8*)* @"\01?filt$0 at
0@safe_div@@"
> to i8*)
>   store i32 0, i32* %r, align 4
>   br label %__try.cont
>
> __try.cont:                                       ; preds = %__except,
> %entry
>   %2 = load i32* %r, align 4
>   ret i32 %2
> }
>
> define internal i32 @"\01?filt$0 at 0@safe_div@@"(i8*
%exception_pointers,
> i8* %frame_pointer) {
> entry:
>   %0 = bitcast i8* %exception_pointers to i32**
>   %1 = load i32** %0, align 8
>   %2 = load i32* %1, align 4
>   %cmp = icmp eq i32 %2, -1073741676
>   %conv = zext i1 %cmp to i32
>   ret i32 %conv
> }
>
> declare i32 @__C_specific_handler(...)
>
>-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141110/f39771c9/attachment.html>

Reid Kleckner

2014-Nov-10 23:39 UTC

head link

[LLVMdev] RFC: How to represent SEH (try / except) in LLVM IR

Hm, this idea won't work. If we point to labels from landingpadinst then
passes like SimplifyCFG will consider the blocks to be unreachable. I
realized this by looking at llvm-dis output after hacking in asmparser
support for this syntax. :)

I'll have to think longer.

On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote:
> Moving this month old RFC to llvmdev. Not sure why I sent this to cfe-dev
> in the first place...
>
> ---
>
> Based on code review discussion from John, he thinks filter expressions
> should be emitted into the body of the function with the try, rather than
> being outlined by the frontend.
>
> Instead of having the frontend create filter functions, we would use
> labels in place of typeinfo. The IR would look like "landingpad ...
catch
> label %filter0 ..." instead of "landingpad ... catch ...
@filter_func0
> ...". There would be a backend pass similar to SjLjEHPrepare that
would
> outline the filter function and cleanup actions. Once we do the outlining,
> there is no turning back, because the outlined function has to know
> something about the stack layout of the parent function. If the parent
> function is inlined, we would have to duplicate the filter function along
> with it.
>
> Given that we want this kind of outlining to handle cleanups, it
shouldn't
> be difficult to use the same machinery for filter expressions.
>
> The IR sample for safe_div at the end of my RFC would look like this
> instead:
>
> define i32 @safe_div(i32 %n, i32 %d) {
> entry:
>   %d.addr = alloca i32, align 4
>   %n.addr = alloca i32, align 4
>   %r = alloca i32, align 4
>   store i32 %d, i32* %d.addr, align 4
>   store i32 %n, i32* %n.addr, align 4
>   invoke void @try_body(i32* %r, i32* %n.addr, i32* %d.addr)
>           to label %__try.cont unwind label %lpad
>
> filter:
>   %eh_code = call i32 @llvm.eh.seh.exception_code() ; or similar
>   %cmp = icmp eq i32 %eh_code, 0xC0000094
>   %r = zext i1 %cmp to i32
>   call void @llvm.eh.seh.filter(i32 %r)
>
> lpad:
>   %0 = landingpad { i8*, i32 } personality i8* bitcast (i32 (...)*
> @__C_specific_handler to i8*)
>           catch label %filter
>   store i32 0, i32* %r, align 4
>   br label %__try.cont
>
> __try.cont:
>   %2 = load i32* %r, align 4
>   ret i32 %2
> }
>
> define internal void @try_body(i32* %r, i32* %n, i32* %d) {
> entry:
>   %0 = load i32* %n, align 4
>   %1 = load i32* %d, align 4
>   %div = sdiv i32 %0, %1
>   store i32 %div, i32* %r, align 4
>   ret void
> }
>
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com>
wrote:
>
>> I want to add SEH support to Clang, which means we need a way to
>> represent it in LLVM IR.
>>
>> Briefly, this is how I think we should represent it:
>> 1. Use a different landingpad personality function for SEH
>> (__C_specific_handler / _except_handlerN)
>> 2. Use filter function pointers in place of type_info globals
>> 3. Outline cleanups such as destructors and __finally on Windows, and
>> provide a function pointer to the landingpad cleanup clause
>>
>> See the example IR at the end of this email. Read on if you want to
>> understand why I think this is the right representation.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Currently LLVM's exception representation is designed around the
Itanium
>> exception handling scheme documented here:
>> http://mentorembedded.github.io/cxx-abi/abi-eh.html
>>
>> LLVM's EH representation is described here, and it maps relatively
>> cleanly onto the Itanium design:
>> http://llvm.org/docs/ExceptionHandling.html
>>
>> First, a little background about what __try is for. It's documented
here:
>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/swezty51.aspx
>>
>> The __try construct exists to allow the user to recover from all manner
>> of faults, including access violations and integer division by zero.
>> Immediately, it's clear that this is directly at odds with LLVM IL
>> semantics. Regardless, I believe it's still useful to implement
__try, even
>> if it won't behave precisely as it does in other compilers in the
presence
>> of undefined behavior.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> The first challenge is that loads in C/C++ can now have exceptional
>> control flow edges. This is impossible to represent in LLVM IR today
>> because only invoke instructions can transfer control to a landing pad.
The
>> simplest way to work around this is to outline the body of the __try
block
>> and mark it noinline, which is what I propose to do initially.
>>
>> Long term, we could lower all potentially trapping operations to
>> intrinsics that we 'invoke' at the IR level. See also Peter
Collingbourne's
>> proposal for iload and istore instructions here (
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2014-April/071732.html).
>>
>> With the outlining approach, in addition to noinline, we need to invent
>> another function attribute to prevent functionattrs from inferring
nounwind
>> and readonly, or the optimizers will delete the invoke unwind edge or
>> entire call site.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> The next challenge is actually catching the exception. The __except
>> construct allows the user to evaluate a (mostly) arbitrary expression
to
>> decide if the exception should be caught. Code generated by MSVC
catches
>> these exceptions with an exception handler provided by the CRT. This
>> handler is analogous to personality functions (__gxx_personality_v0) in
>> LLVM and GCC, so that's what I call it.
>>
>> Notably, SEH and C++ exceptions use *different* personality functions
in
>> MSVC, and each function can only have one personality function. This is
the
>> underlying reason why one cannot mix C++ EH (even C++ RAII!) and __try
in
>> the same function with MSVC. Hypothetically, there is no reason why one
>> could not have a more powerful personality function that handles both
types
>> of exception, but I intend to use the personality function from the CRT
>> directly for the time being.
>>
>> On x86_64, the SEH personality function is called __C_specific_handler.
>> On x86, it is __except_handler4 (or 3), but it's similar to
>> __C_specific_handler and doesn't change how we should represent
this in IR.
>>
>> The personality function interprets some side tables similar to the
>> Itanium LSDA to find the filter function pointers that must be
evaluated to
>> decide which except handler to run at a given PC. The filter
expressions
>> are emitted as separate function bodies that the personality function
>> calls. If a filter function returns '1', that indicates which
except block
>> will perform the recovery, and phase 1 of unwinding ends, similar to
>> Itanium EH.
>>
>> I propose we represent this in IR by:
>> 1. changing the personality function to __C_specific_handler,
>> __except_handler4, or in the future something provided by LLVM
>> 2. replacing the type_info globals we currently put in landing pads
with
>> pointers to filter functions
>>
>> Then, in llvm/lib/CodeGen/AsmPrinter/EHStreamer.cpp where we currently
>> emit the LSDA for Itanium exceptions, we can emit something else keyed
off
>> which kind of personality function we're using.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> SEH also allows implementing cleanups with __finally, but cleanups in
>> general are implemented with a fundamentally different approach.
>>
>> During phase 2 of Itanium EH unwinding, control is propagated back up
the
>> stack. To run a cleanup, the stack is cleared, control enters the
landing
>> pad, and propagation resumes when _UnwindResume is called.
>>
>> On Windows, things work differently. Instead, during phase 2, each
>> personality function is invoked a second time, wherein it must execute
all
>> cleanups *without clearing the stack* before returning control to the
>> runtime where the runtime continues its loop over the stack frames. You
can
>> observe this easily by breaking inside a C++ destructor when an
exception
>> is thrown and taking a stack trace.
>>
>> MinGW's Win64 "SEH" personality function finesses this
issue by taking
>> complete control during phase 2 and following the Itanium scheme of
>> successive stack unwinding. It has the drawback that it's not
really ABI
>> compatible with cleanups emitted by other compilers, which I think
should
>> be a goal for our implementation.
>>
>> It might be possible to do something similar to what MinGW does, and
>> implement our own __gxx_personality* style personality function that
>> interprets the same style of LSDA tables, but we *need* to be able to
>> establish a new stack frame to run cleanups. We cannot unwind out to
the
>> original frame that had the landing pad.
>>
>> In the long term, I think we need to change our representation to
>> implement this. Perhaps the cleanup clause of a landing pad could take
a
>> function pointer as an operand. However, in the short term, I think we
can
>> model this by always catching the exception and then re-raising it.
>> Obviously, this isn't 100% faithful, but it can work.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Here’s some example IR for how we might lower this C code:
>>
>> #define GetExceptionCode() _exception_code()
>> enum { EXCEPTION_INT_DIVIDE_BY_ZERO = 0xC0000094 };
>> int safe_div(int n, int d) {
>>   int r;
>>   __try {
>>     r = n / d;
>>   } __except(GetExceptionCode() == EXCEPTION_INT_DIVIDE_BY_ZERO) {
>>     r = 0;
>>   }
>>   return r;
>> }
>>
>> define internal void @try_body(i32* %r, i32* %n, i32* %d) {
>> entry:
>>   %0 = load i32* %n, align 4
>>   %1 = load i32* %d, align 4
>>   %div = sdiv i32 %0, %1
>>   store i32 %div, i32* %r, align 4
>>   ret void
>> }
>>
>> define i32 @safe_div(i32 %n, i32 %d) {
>> entry:
>>   %d.addr = alloca i32, align 4
>>   %n.addr = alloca i32, align 4
>>   %r = alloca i32, align 4
>>   store i32 %d, i32* %d.addr, align 4
>>   store i32 %n, i32* %n.addr, align 4
>>   invoke void @try_body(i32* %r, i32* %n.addr, i32* %d.addr)
>>           to label %__try.cont unwind label %lpad
>>
>> lpad:                                             ; preds = %entry
>>   %0 = landingpad { i8*, i32 } personality i8* bitcast (i32 (...)*
>> @__C_specific_handler to i8*)
>>           catch i8* bitcast (i32 (i8*, i8*)* @"\01?filt$0 at
0@safe_div@@"
>> to i8*)
>>   store i32 0, i32* %r, align 4
>>   br label %__try.cont
>>
>> __try.cont:                                       ; preds = %__except,
>> %entry
>>   %2 = load i32* %r, align 4
>>   ret i32 %2
>> }
>>
>> define internal i32 @"\01?filt$0 at 0@safe_div@@"(i8*
%exception_pointers,
>> i8* %frame_pointer) {
>> entry:
>>   %0 = bitcast i8* %exception_pointers to i32**
>>   %1 = load i32** %0, align 8
>>   %2 = load i32* %1, align 4
>>   %cmp = icmp eq i32 %2, -1073741676
>>   %conv = zext i1 %cmp to i32
>>   ret i32 %conv
>> }
>>
>> declare i32 @__C_specific_handler(...)
>>
>>
>-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141110/ddaf4ddb/attachment.html>

Kaylor, Andrew

2014-Nov-13 01:07 UTC

head link

[LLVMdev] RFC: How to represent SEH (try / except) in LLVM IR

Hi Reid,

I’ve been following your proposal, and I’d be interested in helping out if I
can.  My main interest right now is in enabling C++ exception handling in clang
for native (i.e. not mingw/cygwin) Windows targets (both 32-bit and 64-bit), but
if I understand things correctly that will be closely related to your SEH work
under the hood.

I’m still trying to get up to speed on what is and is not implemented, but I
think I’m starting to get a clear picture.  My understanding is that LLVM has
the necessary support to emit exception handling records that Windows will be
able to work with (for Win64 EH) but some work may be required to get the IR
properly wired up, and that there’s basically nothing in place to support Win32
EH and nothing in clang to generate the IR for either case.  Is that more or
less accurate?

I’ve been looking at the work Kai Nacke did in ldc to implement exception
handling there, but it isn’t clear to me yet how relevant that is to clang.

Can you tell me more about what your plans are?  Specifically, do you intend to
support both 32 and 64 bit targets?  And were you also planning to work toward
C++ exception handling support in clang once you had the general SEH support in
place?

Finally, and most importantly, what can I do to help?

Thanks,
Andy


From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On
Behalf Of Reid Kleckner
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 3:39 PM
To: LLVM Developers Mailing List; John McCall
Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] RFC: How to represent SEH (__try / __except) in LLVM IR

Hm, this idea won't work. If we point to labels from landingpadinst then
passes like SimplifyCFG will consider the blocks to be unreachable. I realized
this by looking at llvm-dis output after hacking in asmparser support for this
syntax. :)

I'll have to think longer.

On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at
google.com<mailto:rnk at google.com>> wrote:
Moving this month old RFC to llvmdev. Not sure why I sent this to cfe-dev in the
first place...

---

Based on code review discussion from John, he thinks filter expressions should
be emitted into the body of the function with the try, rather than being
outlined by the frontend.

Instead of having the frontend create filter functions, we would use labels in
place of typeinfo. The IR would look like "landingpad ... catch label
%filter0 ..." instead of "landingpad ... catch ... @filter_func0
...". There would be a backend pass similar to SjLjEHPrepare that would
outline the filter function and cleanup actions. Once we do the outlining, there
is no turning back, because the outlined function has to know something about
the stack layout of the parent function. If the parent function is inlined, we
would have to duplicate the filter function along with it.

Given that we want this kind of outlining to handle cleanups, it shouldn't
be difficult to use the same machinery for filter expressions.

The IR sample for safe_div at the end of my RFC would look like this instead:

define i32 @safe_div(i32 %n, i32 %d) {
entry:
  %d.addr = alloca i32, align 4
  %n.addr = alloca i32, align 4
  %r = alloca i32, align 4
  store i32 %d, i32* %d.addr, align 4
  store i32 %n, i32* %n.addr, align 4
  invoke void @try_body(i32* %r, i32* %n.addr, i32* %d.addr)
          to label %__try.cont unwind label %lpad

filter:
  %eh_code = call i32 @llvm.eh.seh.exception_code() ; or similar
  %cmp = icmp eq i32 %eh_code, 0xC0000094
  %r = zext i1 %cmp to i32
  call void @llvm.eh.seh.filter(i32 %r)

lpad:
  %0 = landingpad { i8*, i32 } personality i8* bitcast (i32 (...)*
@__C_specific_handler to i8*)
          catch label %filter
  store i32 0, i32* %r, align 4
  br label %__try.cont

__try.cont:
  %2 = load i32* %r, align 4
  ret i32 %2
}

define internal void @try_body(i32* %r, i32* %n, i32* %d) {
entry:
  %0 = load i32* %n, align 4
  %1 = load i32* %d, align 4
  %div = sdiv i32 %0, %1
  store i32 %div, i32* %r, align 4
  ret void
}

On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at
google.com<mailto:rnk at google.com>> wrote:
I want to add SEH support to Clang, which means we need a way to represent it in
LLVM IR.

Briefly, this is how I think we should represent it:
1. Use a different landingpad personality function for SEH (__C_specific_handler
/ _except_handlerN)
2. Use filter function pointers in place of type_info globals
3. Outline cleanups such as destructors and __finally on Windows, and provide a
function pointer to the landingpad cleanup clause

See the example IR at the end of this email. Read on if you want to understand
why I think this is the right representation.

---

Currently LLVM's exception representation is designed around the Itanium
exception handling scheme documented here:
http://mentorembedded.github.io/cxx-abi/abi-eh.html

LLVM's EH representation is described here, and it maps relatively cleanly
onto the Itanium design:
http://llvm.org/docs/ExceptionHandling.html

First, a little background about what __try is for. It's documented here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/swezty51.aspx

The __try construct exists to allow the user to recover from all manner of
faults, including access violations and integer division by zero. Immediately,
it's clear that this is directly at odds with LLVM IL semantics. Regardless,
I believe it's still useful to implement __try, even if it won't behave
precisely as it does in other compilers in the presence of undefined behavior.

---

The first challenge is that loads in C/C++ can now have exceptional control flow
edges. This is impossible to represent in LLVM IR today because only invoke
instructions can transfer control to a landing pad. The simplest way to work
around this is to outline the body of the __try block and mark it noinline,
which is what I propose to do initially.

Long term, we could lower all potentially trapping operations to intrinsics that
we 'invoke' at the IR level. See also Peter Collingbourne's proposal
for iload and istore instructions here
(http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2014-April/071732.html).

With the outlining approach, in addition to noinline, we need to invent another
function attribute to prevent functionattrs from inferring nounwind and
readonly, or the optimizers will delete the invoke unwind edge or entire call
site.

---

The next challenge is actually catching the exception. The __except construct
allows the user to evaluate a (mostly) arbitrary expression to decide if the
exception should be caught. Code generated by MSVC catches these exceptions with
an exception handler provided by the CRT. This handler is analogous to
personality functions (__gxx_personality_v0) in LLVM and GCC, so that's what
I call it.

Notably, SEH and C++ exceptions use *different* personality functions in MSVC,
and each function can only have one personality function. This is the underlying
reason why one cannot mix C++ EH (even C++ RAII!) and __try in the same function
with MSVC. Hypothetically, there is no reason why one could not have a more
powerful personality function that handles both types of exception, but I intend
to use the personality function from the CRT directly for the time being.

On x86_64, the SEH personality function is called __C_specific_handler. On x86,
it is __except_handler4 (or 3), but it's similar to __C_specific_handler and
doesn't change how we should represent this in IR.

The personality function interprets some side tables similar to the Itanium LSDA
to find the filter function pointers that must be evaluated to decide which
except handler to run at a given PC. The filter expressions are emitted as
separate function bodies that the personality function calls. If a filter
function returns '1', that indicates which except block will perform the
recovery, and phase 1 of unwinding ends, similar to Itanium EH.

I propose we represent this in IR by:
1. changing the personality function to __C_specific_handler, __except_handler4,
or in the future something provided by LLVM
2. replacing the type_info globals we currently put in landing pads with
pointers to filter functions

Then, in llvm/lib/CodeGen/AsmPrinter/EHStreamer.cpp where we currently emit the
LSDA for Itanium exceptions, we can emit something else keyed off which kind of
personality function we're using.

---

SEH also allows implementing cleanups with __finally, but cleanups in general
are implemented with a fundamentally different approach.

During phase 2 of Itanium EH unwinding, control is propagated back up the stack.
To run a cleanup, the stack is cleared, control enters the landing pad, and
propagation resumes when _UnwindResume is called.

On Windows, things work differently. Instead, during phase 2, each personality
function is invoked a second time, wherein it must execute all cleanups *without
clearing the stack* before returning control to the runtime where the runtime
continues its loop over the stack frames. You can observe this easily by
breaking inside a C++ destructor when an exception is thrown and taking a stack
trace.

MinGW's Win64 "SEH" personality function finesses this issue by
taking complete control during phase 2 and following the Itanium scheme of
successive stack unwinding. It has the drawback that it's not really ABI
compatible with cleanups emitted by other compilers, which I think should be a
goal for our implementation.

It might be possible to do something similar to what MinGW does, and implement
our own __gxx_personality* style personality function that interprets the same
style of LSDA tables, but we *need* to be able to establish a new stack frame to
run cleanups. We cannot unwind out to the original frame that had the landing
pad.

In the long term, I think we need to change our representation to implement
this. Perhaps the cleanup clause of a landing pad could take a function pointer
as an operand. However, in the short term, I think we can model this by always
catching the exception and then re-raising it. Obviously, this isn't 100%
faithful, but it can work.

---

Here’s some example IR for how we might lower this C code:

#define GetExceptionCode() _exception_code()
enum { EXCEPTION_INT_DIVIDE_BY_ZERO = 0xC0000094 };
int safe_div(int n, int d) {
  int r;
  __try {
    r = n / d;
  } __except(GetExceptionCode() == EXCEPTION_INT_DIVIDE_BY_ZERO) {
    r = 0;
  }
  return r;
}

define internal void @try_body(i32* %r, i32* %n, i32* %d) {
entry:
  %0 = load i32* %n, align 4
  %1 = load i32* %d, align 4
  %div = sdiv i32 %0, %1
  store i32 %div, i32* %r, align 4
  ret void
}

define i32 @safe_div(i32 %n, i32 %d) {
entry:
  %d.addr = alloca i32, align 4
  %n.addr = alloca i32, align 4
  %r = alloca i32, align 4
  store i32 %d, i32* %d.addr, align 4
  store i32 %n, i32* %n.addr, align 4
  invoke void @try_body(i32* %r, i32* %n.addr, i32* %d.addr)
          to label %__try.cont unwind label %lpad

lpad:                                             ; preds = %entry
  %0 = landingpad { i8*, i32 } personality i8* bitcast (i32 (...)*
@__C_specific_handler to i8*)
          catch i8* bitcast (i32 (i8*, i8*)* @"\01?filt$0 at
0@safe_div@@" to i8*)
  store i32 0, i32* %r, align 4
  br label %__try.cont

__try.cont:                                       ; preds = %__except, %entry
  %2 = load i32* %r, align 4
  ret i32 %2
}

define internal i32 @"\01?filt$0 at 0@safe_div@@"(i8*
%exception_pointers, i8* %frame_pointer) {
entry:
  %0 = bitcast i8* %exception_pointers to i32**
  %1 = load i32** %0, align 8
  %2 = load i32* %1, align 4
  %cmp = icmp eq i32 %2, -1073741676
  %conv = zext i1 %cmp to i32
  ret i32 %conv
}

declare i32 @__C_specific_handler(...)



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141113/b7f46432/attachment.html>

Possibly Parallel Threads

Search for more reasonably related threads

llvm dev - Nov 2014 - [LLVMdev] RFC: How to represent SEH (__try / __except) in LLVM IR

[LLVMdev] RFC: How to represent SEH (__try / __except) in LLVM IR

[LLVMdev] RFC: How to represent SEH (__try / __except) in LLVM IR

[LLVMdev] RFC: How to represent SEH (__try / __except) in LLVM IR

Possibly Parallel Threads

llvm dev - Nov 2014 - [LLVMdev] RFC: How to represent SEH (try / except) in LLVM IR

[LLVMdev] RFC: How to represent SEH (try / except) in LLVM IR

[LLVMdev] RFC: How to represent SEH (try / except) in LLVM IR

[LLVMdev] RFC: How to represent SEH (try / except) in LLVM IR