Kaylor, Andrew
2014-Nov-14 01:19 UTC
[LLVMdev] RFC: How to represent SEH (__try / __except) in LLVM IR
I don’t really have a good enough feeling for the landingpad syntax yet to
comment on the most natural way to extend it yet, but creating a synthetic
cleanup function to call from the personality function is what I was thinking.
With the current (trunk +/- a couple of weeks) clang, compiling for an
“x86_64-pc-windows-msvc” target, I’m seeing a landingpad that looks like this:
lpad: ; preds = %if.end, %if.then
%2 = landingpad { i8*, i32 } personality i8* bitcast (i32 (...)*
@__gxx_personality_v0 to i8*)
cleanup
%3 = extractvalue { i8*, i32 } %2, 0
store i8* %3, i8** %exn.slot
%4 = extractvalue { i8*, i32 } %2, 1
store i32 %4, i32* %ehselector.slot
call void @"\01??1Bob@@QEAA at XZ"(%class.Bob* %bob) #3 ; Calling
the destructor for a class named “Bob”
br label %eh.resume
Replacing __gxx_personality_v0 with the name of my custom personality function
(which has the SEH signature) and scrubbing out the terminate and resume calls
for the time being, I see my personality function being called twice -- first
for the C++ exception (Exception code == 0xe06d7363) and once for the unwind.
So now I just need to figure out how to get a pointer to a cleanup function into
the DispatcherContext->HandlerData, which must be where the extra stuff in
the landingpad comes in, right?
Anyway, I think I’m making progress. :-)
-Andy
From: Reid Kleckner [mailto:rnk at google.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 4:22 PM
To: Kaylor, Andrew
Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List; John McCall
Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] RFC: How to represent SEH (__try / __except) in LLVM IR
Focusing on cleanups is probably a good way to start. The trouble is that your
personality function can't just reset rsp and jump to the landing pad, or it
will trash the state of the unwinder that's still on the stack. Everything
in the landing pad basically has to be outlined. If the outlining happens at the
IR level, we need some way to represent that, and I don't really have it
nailed down.
Here's an idea, just to brainstorm:
define void @parent() {
invoke ... unwind to %lpad
...
lpad:
%eh_vals = landingpad { i8*, i32 } personality i8* bitcast (i32 (...)*
@__C_specific_handler to i8*)
cleanup
catch i8* @typeid1
catch i8* @typeid2
%label = call i8* (...)* @llvm.eh.outlined_handlers(
void (i8*, i8*)* @my_cleanup,
i8* @typeid1, i8* (i8*, i8*)* @my_catch1,
i8* @typeid2, i8* (i8*, i8*)* @my_catch2)
indirectbr i8* %label
endcatch:
...
}
define void @my_cleanup(i8*, i8*) {
...
ret void ; unwinder will keep going for cleanups
}
define i8* @my_catch1(i8*, i8*) {
ret i8* blockaddress(@parent, %endcatch) ; merge back into normal flow at
endcatch
}
define i8* @my_catch2(i8*, i8*) {
ret i8* blockaddress(@parent, %endcatch) ; merge back into normal flow at
endcatch
}
I guess @llvm.eh.outlined_handlers wouldn't be valid outside a landing pad,
and would only be introduced during CodeGenPrepare to allow the best
optimization of the handlers in the context of the parent function.
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at
intel.com<mailto:andrew.kaylor at intel.com>> wrote:
Thanks for the additional information.
Right now I’m experimenting with a mix of code compiled with MSVC and code
compiled with clang, trying to get a C++ exception thrown and caught by the
MSVC-compiled code across a function in the clang-compiled code. My goal here
is to isolate a small part of what needs to be done in a way that lends itself
to tinkering. I think this might lead me to the outlining of EH blocks that you
describe below.
If the clang code doesn’t have and exception handler (and it can’t since clang
won’t compile that right now) and doesn’t need to do any clean-up, this works
fine. If the clang code does need to do cleanup, clang currently emits the same
landingpad stuff that it would emit for mingw and since I’m trying to link with
the MSVC environment I end up with unresolved externals. So I’m playing around
with the clang-generated IR to see if I can turn it into something that will
handle the cleanup and let the exception pass. I’ve got it calling my custom
SEH-style personality function and it’s trivial to get that to let the exception
pass without doing the cleanup. Now I just need to figure out how to get it to
execute the cleanup code.
I haven’t spent a lot of time on this yet, so if this overlaps with what you’ve
been doing I can step back and approach it from a different direction.
Otherwise, I’ll proceed and see if I can make use of your suggestions below with
regard to outlining, probably starting with manual changes to the IR that
simulate the process.
-Andy
From: Reid Kleckner [mailto:rnk at google.com<mailto:rnk at google.com>]
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 11:51 AM
To: Kaylor, Andrew
Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List; John McCall
Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] RFC: How to represent SEH (__try / __except) in LLVM IR
Cool! Apologies for the following stream of consciousness brain dump...
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at
intel.com<mailto:andrew.kaylor at intel.com>> wrote:
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.
Great! I agree, any changes to LLVM IR made to support SEH will also be needed
to support C++ exceptions on Windows, in particular the outlining.
In the current LLVM model, all the exception handling code lives in the landing
pad. The Windows unwinder doesn't actually return control to the landingpad
until very late. Instead, it creates new stack frames to invoke the cleanup,
catch handler (C++ EH only), or filter function (SEH only). This is why we need
to have outlining somewhere. The question is, where should we do it? Personally,
I want to do this on LLVM IR during CodeGenPrepare.
The major challenge that outlining anywhere presents is that now the outlined
code has to "know" something about the frame layout of the function it
was outlined from in order to access local variables. I think we can add `i8*
@llvm.eh.get_capture_block(i8* %function, i8* %parent_rbp)` and `void
@llvm.eh.set_capture_block(i8* %captures)` intrinsics to make this work. Any SSA
values or allocas captured by the outlined landing pad code will be demoted to
memory and stored in the capture block, and the layout will be encoded in a
struct used by the outlined handlers and the parent function. However, once you
do this, you cannot inline the IR without some heroics. It probably isn't
that important to be able to inline functions with try/catch, but a good acid
test for any new LLVM IR construct is "will it inline?", and this
construct fails. I think we can live with this construct as long as we only
introduce it after CodeGenPrepare.
The remaining wrinkle in the capture block scheme is stack realignment
prologues. In this case, we have three pointers to the stack: the SP, the base
pointer (esi/rbx), and the frame pointer (ebp/rbp). Is the capture block stored
at a known constant offset from ebp/rbp or esi/rbx? Or do we load and store a
dynamic offset saved somewhere near ebp/rbp? This needs study.
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?
We can emit valid pdata and xdata sections on Win64, and this supports basic
stack unwinding. On top of that, we currently follow mingw64 and use
Itanium-style LSDA tables and the __gxx_personality_seh0 personality function to
run EH handlers. This means the standard exception handling IR emitted by clang
and other frontends "just works" on Windows, and I want to keep it
that way. I think most of the changes should be on the LLVM side to lower the
standard EH IR down to something that is more compatible with MSVC EH.
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?
I want to do Win64 first because it is easier and better documented, and then
look at 32-bit next. 32-bit SEH does things like "take the address of a BB
label from the middle of the parent function and 'call' it with a
special ebp value passed in", but that is basically equivalent to the Win64
way of doing things with a very special calling convention.
I know some people are also interested in ARM (WoA), which should be similar to
Win64, as it also uses pdata/xdata style unwind info.
Finally, and most importantly, what can I do to help?
I think there are some separable tasks here.
The EH capture block intrinsics can probably be built in isolation from the
outlining. We can probably make `get_capture_block` work with the result of
`@llvm.frameaddress(i32 0)`. The inliner also has to be taught to avoid inlining
functions that set up a capture block.
Doing outlining will be similar what `llvm::CloneAndPruneFunctionInto` does,
except it will start at the landing pad instead of the entry block. Instead of
mapping from parameters to arguments, the outliner would map the selector to a
constant and propagate that value forwards, pruning conditional branches as it
goes. The `resume` instruction would end outlining and become a `ret`. Any
cloned `ret` instructions are the result of cloning something that is statically
reachable but dynamically unreachable. We can transform them to `unreachable`
and run standard cleanup passes to propagate that backwards.
32-bit x86 EH will require installing an alloca onto the fs:00 chain of EH
handlers. I suppose this could be emitted during CodeGenPrepare as regular LLVM
IR instructions, since we have a way of writing `load/store fs:00` with address
space 257. This alloca should probably be the same as the capture block, since
it has to be at some known offset from ebp.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141114/8b2f5749/attachment.html>
Reid Kleckner
2014-Nov-14 01:28 UTC
[LLVMdev] RFC: How to represent SEH (__try / __except) in LLVM IR
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com> wrote:> I don’t really have a good enough feeling for the landingpad syntax yet > to comment on the most natural way to extend it yet, but creating a > synthetic cleanup function to call from the personality function is what I > was thinking. >Pretty much.> With the current (trunk +/- a couple of weeks) clang, compiling for an > “x86_64-pc-windows-msvc” target, I’m seeing a landingpad that looks like > this: > > > > lpad: ; preds = %if.end, > %if.then > > %2 = landingpad { i8*, i32 } personality i8* bitcast (i32 (...)* > @__gxx_personality_v0 to i8*) > > cleanup > > %3 = extractvalue { i8*, i32 } %2, 0 > > store i8* %3, i8** %exn.slot > > %4 = extractvalue { i8*, i32 } %2, 1 > > store i32 %4, i32* %ehselector.slot > > call void @"\01??1Bob@@QEAA at XZ"(%class.Bob* %bob) #3 ; Calling the > destructor for a class named “Bob” > > br label %eh.resume > > > > Replacing __gxx_personality_v0 with the name of my custom personality > function (which has the SEH signature) and scrubbing out the terminate and > resume calls for the time being, I see my personality function being called > twice -- first for the C++ exception (Exception code == 0xe06d7363) and > once for the unwind. So now I just need to figure out how to get a pointer > to a cleanup function into the DispatcherContext->HandlerData, which must > be where the extra stuff in the landingpad comes in, right? >It's got some docs here: http://llvm.org/docs/ExceptionHandling.html#overview The two values are the exception pointer and the selector value. The selector value is an artifact of the way we model the Itanium EH scheme, and you can basically set it to zero if you only want to deal with cleanups for the time being. The exception pointer is presumably pulled from the arguments to the personality routine. Again, cleanups don't need it, so you can probably zero it too. Anyway, I think I’m making progress. :-)>Nice! -Andy> > > > > > *From:* Reid Kleckner [mailto:rnk at google.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, November 13, 2014 4:22 PM > > *To:* Kaylor, Andrew > *Cc:* LLVM Developers Mailing List; John McCall > *Subject:* Re: [LLVMdev] RFC: How to represent SEH (__try / __except) in > LLVM IR > > > > Focusing on cleanups is probably a good way to start. The trouble is that > your personality function can't just reset rsp and jump to the landing pad, > or it will trash the state of the unwinder that's still on the stack. > Everything in the landing pad basically has to be outlined. If the > outlining happens at the IR level, we need some way to represent that, and > I don't really have it nailed down. > > > > Here's an idea, just to brainstorm: > > > > define void @parent() { > > invoke ... unwind to %lpad > > ... > > lpad: > > %eh_vals = landingpad { i8*, i32 } personality i8* bitcast (i32 (...)* > @__C_specific_handler to i8*) > > cleanup > > catch i8* @typeid1 > > catch i8* @typeid2 > > %label = call i8* (...)* @llvm.eh.outlined_handlers( > > void (i8*, i8*)* @my_cleanup, > > i8* @typeid1, i8* (i8*, i8*)* @my_catch1, > > i8* @typeid2, i8* (i8*, i8*)* @my_catch2) > > indirectbr i8* %label > > > > endcatch: > > ... > > } > > > > define void @my_cleanup(i8*, i8*) { > > ... > > ret void ; unwinder will keep going for cleanups > } > > > > define i8* @my_catch1(i8*, i8*) { > > ret i8* blockaddress(@parent, %endcatch) ; merge back into normal flow > at endcatch > } > > > > define i8* @my_catch2(i8*, i8*) { > > ret i8* blockaddress(@parent, %endcatch) ; merge back into normal flow > at endcatch > } > > > > I guess @llvm.eh.outlined_handlers wouldn't be valid outside a landing > pad, and would only be introduced during CodeGenPrepare to allow the best > optimization of the handlers in the context of the parent function. > > > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com> > wrote: > > Thanks for the additional information. > > > > Right now I’m experimenting with a mix of code compiled with MSVC and code > compiled with clang, trying to get a C++ exception thrown and caught by the > MSVC-compiled code across a function in the clang-compiled code. My goal > here is to isolate a small part of what needs to be done in a way that > lends itself to tinkering. I think this might lead me to the outlining of > EH blocks that you describe below. > > > > If the clang code doesn’t have and exception handler (and it can’t since > clang won’t compile that right now) and doesn’t need to do any clean-up, > this works fine. If the clang code does need to do cleanup, clang > currently emits the same landingpad stuff that it would emit for mingw and > since I’m trying to link with the MSVC environment I end up with unresolved > externals. So I’m playing around with the clang-generated IR to see if I > can turn it into something that will handle the cleanup and let the > exception pass. I’ve got it calling my custom SEH-style personality > function and it’s trivial to get that to let the exception pass without > doing the cleanup. Now I just need to figure out how to get it to execute > the cleanup code. > > > > I haven’t spent a lot of time on this yet, so if this overlaps with what > you’ve been doing I can step back and approach it from a different > direction. Otherwise, I’ll proceed and see if I can make use of your > suggestions below with regard to outlining, probably starting with manual > changes to the IR that simulate the process. > > > > -Andy > > > > > > *From:* Reid Kleckner [mailto:rnk at google.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, November 13, 2014 11:51 AM > *To:* Kaylor, Andrew > *Cc:* LLVM Developers Mailing List; John McCall > *Subject:* Re: [LLVMdev] RFC: How to represent SEH (__try / __except) in > LLVM IR > > > > Cool! Apologies for the following stream of consciousness brain dump... > > > > On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com> > wrote: > > 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. > > > > Great! I agree, any changes to LLVM IR made to support SEH will also be > needed to support C++ exceptions on Windows, in particular the outlining. > > > > In the current LLVM model, all the exception handling code lives in the > landing pad. The Windows unwinder doesn't actually return control to the > landingpad until very late. Instead, it creates new stack frames to invoke > the cleanup, catch handler (C++ EH only), or filter function (SEH only). > This is why we need to have outlining somewhere. The question is, where > should we do it? Personally, I want to do this on LLVM IR during > CodeGenPrepare. > > > > The major challenge that outlining anywhere presents is that now the > outlined code has to "know" something about the frame layout of the > function it was outlined from in order to access local variables. I think > we can add `i8* @llvm.eh.get_capture_block(i8* %function, i8* %parent_rbp)` > and `void @llvm.eh.set_capture_block(i8* %captures)` intrinsics to make > this work. Any SSA values or allocas captured by the outlined landing pad > code will be demoted to memory and stored in the capture block, and the > layout will be encoded in a struct used by the outlined handlers and the > parent function. However, once you do this, you cannot inline the IR > without some heroics. It probably isn't that important to be able to inline > functions with try/catch, but a good acid test for any new LLVM IR > construct is "will it inline?", and this construct fails. I think we can > live with this construct as long as we only introduce it after > CodeGenPrepare. > > > > The remaining wrinkle in the capture block scheme is stack realignment > prologues. In this case, we have three pointers to the stack: the SP, the > base pointer (esi/rbx), and the frame pointer (ebp/rbp). Is the capture > block stored at a known constant offset from ebp/rbp or esi/rbx? Or do we > load and store a dynamic offset saved somewhere near ebp/rbp? This needs > study. > > > > 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? > > > > We can emit valid pdata and xdata sections on Win64, and this supports > basic stack unwinding. On top of that, we currently follow mingw64 and use > Itanium-style LSDA tables and the __gxx_personality_seh0 personality > function to run EH handlers. This means the standard exception handling IR > emitted by clang and other frontends "just works" on Windows, and I want to > keep it that way. I think most of the changes should be on the LLVM side to > lower the standard EH IR down to something that is more compatible with > MSVC EH. > > > > 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? > > > > I want to do Win64 first because it is easier and better documented, and > then look at 32-bit next. 32-bit SEH does things like "take the address of > a BB label from the middle of the parent function and 'call' it with a > special ebp value passed in", but that is basically equivalent to the Win64 > way of doing things with a very special calling convention. > > > > I know some people are also interested in ARM (WoA), which should be > similar to Win64, as it also uses pdata/xdata style unwind info. > > > > Finally, and most importantly, what can I do to help? > > > > I think there are some separable tasks here. > > > > The EH capture block intrinsics can probably be built in isolation from > the outlining. We can probably make `get_capture_block` work with the > result of `@llvm.frameaddress(i32 0)`. The inliner also has to be taught to > avoid inlining functions that set up a capture block. > > > > Doing outlining will be similar what `llvm::CloneAndPruneFunctionInto` > does, except it will start at the landing pad instead of the entry block. > Instead of mapping from parameters to arguments, the outliner would map the > selector to a constant and propagate that value forwards, pruning > conditional branches as it goes. The `resume` instruction would end > outlining and become a `ret`. Any cloned `ret` instructions are the result > of cloning something that is statically reachable but dynamically > unreachable. We can transform them to `unreachable` and run standard > cleanup passes to propagate that backwards. > > > > 32-bit x86 EH will require installing an alloca onto the fs:00 chain of EH > handlers. I suppose this could be emitted during CodeGenPrepare as regular > LLVM IR instructions, since we have a way of writing `load/store fs:00` > with address space 257. This alloca should probably be the same as the > capture block, since it has to be at some known offset from ebp. > > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141113/bddea495/attachment.html>
Bob Wilson
2014-Nov-18 01:22 UTC
[LLVMdev] RFC: How to represent SEH (__try / __except) in LLVM IR
I don’t know much about SEH and haven’t had time to really dig into this, but the idea of outlining functions that need to know about the frame layout sounds a bit scary. Is it really necessary? I’m wondering if you can treat the cleanups and filter functions as portions of the same function, instead of outlining them to separate functions. Can you arrange to set up the base pointer on entry to one of those segments of code to have the same value as when running the normal part of the function? If so, from the code-gen point of view, doesn’t it just behave as if there is a large dynamic alloca on the stack at that point (because the stack pointer is not where it was when the function was previously running)? Are there other constraints that prevent that from working?> On Nov 13, 2014, at 5:28 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com <mailto:andrew.kaylor at intel.com>> wrote: > I don’t really have a good enough feeling for the landingpad syntax yet to comment on the most natural way to extend it yet, but creating a synthetic cleanup function to call from the personality function is what I was thinking. > > > Pretty much. > > With the current (trunk +/- a couple of weeks) clang, compiling for an “x86_64-pc-windows-msvc” target, I’m seeing a landingpad that looks like this: > > > > lpad: ; preds = %if.end, %if.then > > %2 = landingpad { i8*, i32 } personality i8* bitcast (i32 (...)* @__gxx_personality_v0 to i8*) > > cleanup > > %3 = extractvalue { i8*, i32 } %2, 0 > > store i8* %3, i8** %exn.slot > > %4 = extractvalue { i8*, i32 } %2, 1 > > store i32 %4, i32* %ehselector.slot > > call void @"\01??1Bob@@QEAA at XZ"(%class.Bob* %bob) #3 ; Calling the destructor for a class named “Bob” > > br label %eh.resume > > > > Replacing __gxx_personality_v0 with the name of my custom personality function (which has the SEH signature) and scrubbing out the terminate and resume calls for the time being, I see my personality function being called twice -- first for the C++ exception (Exception code == 0xe06d7363) and once for the unwind. So now I just need to figure out how to get a pointer to a cleanup function into the DispatcherContext->HandlerData, which must be where the extra stuff in the landingpad comes in, right? > > > It's got some docs here: > http://llvm.org/docs/ExceptionHandling.html#overview <http://llvm.org/docs/ExceptionHandling.html#overview> > > The two values are the exception pointer and the selector value. The selector value is an artifact of the way we model the Itanium EH scheme, and you can basically set it to zero if you only want to deal with cleanups for the time being. The exception pointer is presumably pulled from the arguments to the personality routine. Again, cleanups don't need it, so you can probably zero it too. > > Anyway, I think I’m making progress. :-) > > > Nice! > > > -Andy > > > > > > From: Reid Kleckner [mailto:rnk at google.com <mailto:rnk at google.com>] > Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 4:22 PM > > > To: Kaylor, Andrew > Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List; John McCall > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] RFC: How to represent SEH (__try / __except) in LLVM IR > > > > Focusing on cleanups is probably a good way to start. The trouble is that your personality function can't just reset rsp and jump to the landing pad, or it will trash the state of the unwinder that's still on the stack. Everything in the landing pad basically has to be outlined. If the outlining happens at the IR level, we need some way to represent that, and I don't really have it nailed down. > > > > Here's an idea, just to brainstorm: > > > > define void @parent() { > > invoke ... unwind to %lpad > > ... > > lpad: > > %eh_vals = landingpad { i8*, i32 } personality i8* bitcast (i32 (...)* @__C_specific_handler to i8*) > > cleanup > > catch i8* @typeid1 > > catch i8* @typeid2 > > %label = call i8* (...)* @llvm.eh.outlined_handlers( > > void (i8*, i8*)* @my_cleanup, > > i8* @typeid1, i8* (i8*, i8*)* @my_catch1, > > i8* @typeid2, i8* (i8*, i8*)* @my_catch2) > > indirectbr i8* %label > > > > endcatch: > > ... > > } > > > > define void @my_cleanup(i8*, i8*) { > > ... > > ret void ; unwinder will keep going for cleanups > } > > > > define i8* @my_catch1(i8*, i8*) { > > ret i8* blockaddress(@parent, %endcatch) ; merge back into normal flow at endcatch > } > > > > define i8* @my_catch2(i8*, i8*) { > > ret i8* blockaddress(@parent, %endcatch) ; merge back into normal flow at endcatch > } > > > > I guess @llvm.eh.outlined_handlers wouldn't be valid outside a landing pad, and would only be introduced during CodeGenPrepare to allow the best optimization of the handlers in the context of the parent function. > > > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com <mailto:andrew.kaylor at intel.com>> wrote: > > Thanks for the additional information. > > > > Right now I’m experimenting with a mix of code compiled with MSVC and code compiled with clang, trying to get a C++ exception thrown and caught by the MSVC-compiled code across a function in the clang-compiled code. My goal here is to isolate a small part of what needs to be done in a way that lends itself to tinkering. I think this might lead me to the outlining of EH blocks that you describe below. > > > > If the clang code doesn’t have and exception handler (and it can’t since clang won’t compile that right now) and doesn’t need to do any clean-up, this works fine. If the clang code does need to do cleanup, clang currently emits the same landingpad stuff that it would emit for mingw and since I’m trying to link with the MSVC environment I end up with unresolved externals. So I’m playing around with the clang-generated IR to see if I can turn it into something that will handle the cleanup and let the exception pass. I’ve got it calling my custom SEH-style personality function and it’s trivial to get that to let the exception pass without doing the cleanup. Now I just need to figure out how to get it to execute the cleanup code. > > > > I haven’t spent a lot of time on this yet, so if this overlaps with what you’ve been doing I can step back and approach it from a different direction. Otherwise, I’ll proceed and see if I can make use of your suggestions below with regard to outlining, probably starting with manual changes to the IR that simulate the process. > > > > -Andy > > > > > > From: Reid Kleckner [mailto:rnk at google.com <mailto:rnk at google.com>] > Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 11:51 AM > To: Kaylor, Andrew > Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List; John McCall > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] RFC: How to represent SEH (__try / __except) in LLVM IR > > > > Cool! Apologies for the following stream of consciousness brain dump... > > > > On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com <mailto:andrew.kaylor at intel.com>> wrote: > > 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. > > > > Great! I agree, any changes to LLVM IR made to support SEH will also be needed to support C++ exceptions on Windows, in particular the outlining. > > > > In the current LLVM model, all the exception handling code lives in the landing pad. The Windows unwinder doesn't actually return control to the landingpad until very late. Instead, it creates new stack frames to invoke the cleanup, catch handler (C++ EH only), or filter function (SEH only). This is why we need to have outlining somewhere. The question is, where should we do it? Personally, I want to do this on LLVM IR during CodeGenPrepare. > > > > The major challenge that outlining anywhere presents is that now the outlined code has to "know" something about the frame layout of the function it was outlined from in order to access local variables. I think we can add `i8* @llvm.eh.get_capture_block(i8* %function, i8* %parent_rbp)` and `void @llvm.eh.set_capture_block(i8* %captures)` intrinsics to make this work. Any SSA values or allocas captured by the outlined landing pad code will be demoted to memory and stored in the capture block, and the layout will be encoded in a struct used by the outlined handlers and the parent function. However, once you do this, you cannot inline the IR without some heroics. It probably isn't that important to be able to inline functions with try/catch, but a good acid test for any new LLVM IR construct is "will it inline?", and this construct fails. I think we can live with this construct as long as we only introduce it after CodeGenPrepare. > > > > The remaining wrinkle in the capture block scheme is stack realignment prologues. In this case, we have three pointers to the stack: the SP, the base pointer (esi/rbx), and the frame pointer (ebp/rbp). Is the capture block stored at a known constant offset from ebp/rbp or esi/rbx? Or do we load and store a dynamic offset saved somewhere near ebp/rbp? This needs study. > > > > 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? > > > > We can emit valid pdata and xdata sections on Win64, and this supports basic stack unwinding. On top of that, we currently follow mingw64 and use Itanium-style LSDA tables and the __gxx_personality_seh0 personality function to run EH handlers. This means the standard exception handling IR emitted by clang and other frontends "just works" on Windows, and I want to keep it that way. I think most of the changes should be on the LLVM side to lower the standard EH IR down to something that is more compatible with MSVC EH. > > > > 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? > > > > I want to do Win64 first because it is easier and better documented, and then look at 32-bit next. 32-bit SEH does things like "take the address of a BB label from the middle of the parent function and 'call' it with a special ebp value passed in", but that is basically equivalent to the Win64 way of doing things with a very special calling convention. > > > > I know some people are also interested in ARM (WoA), which should be similar to Win64, as it also uses pdata/xdata style unwind info. > > > > Finally, and most importantly, what can I do to help? > > > > I think there are some separable tasks here. > > > > The EH capture block intrinsics can probably be built in isolation from the outlining. We can probably make `get_capture_block` work with the result of `@llvm.frameaddress(i32 0)`. The inliner also has to be taught to avoid inlining functions that set up a capture block. > > > > Doing outlining will be similar what `llvm::CloneAndPruneFunctionInto` does, except it will start at the landing pad instead of the entry block. Instead of mapping from parameters to arguments, the outliner would map the selector to a constant and propagate that value forwards, pruning conditional branches as it goes. The `resume` instruction would end outlining and become a `ret`. Any cloned `ret` instructions are the result of cloning something that is statically reachable but dynamically unreachable. We can transform them to `unreachable` and run standard cleanup passes to propagate that backwards. > > > > 32-bit x86 EH will require installing an alloca onto the fs:00 chain of EH handlers. I suppose this could be emitted during CodeGenPrepare as regular LLVM IR instructions, since we have a way of writing `load/store fs:00` with address space 257. This alloca should probably be the same as the capture block, since it has to be at some known offset from ebp. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141117/06e1707e/attachment.html>