search for: ___gxx_personality_v0

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 expression this 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, y...

Hi Duncan, > > 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 > > this is the darwin assembler that barfs, right? It looks like it doesn't > like the way the personality function is output in...

...ssions 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 { inl...

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 24 Aug 2007, at 22:11, Duncan Sands wrote: > 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 expression > > this is the darwin assembler that barfs, right? It looks like it > doesn't > like the way the personality functi...

...t L$set$2,L6-LFB2 .long L$set$2 .byte 0x0 i.e. the range of instructions covering the call to foo() has an action table index of 0, meaning a cleanup. Here is the output of ToT clang on this code: __Z3barv: ## @_Z3barv Ltmp5: .cfi_startproc .cfi_personality 155, ___gxx_personality_v0 Leh_func_begin0: .cfi_lsda 16, Lexception0 ## BB#0: ## %entry pushq %rbp Ltmp6: .cfi_def_cfa_offset 16 Ltmp7: .cfi_offset %rbp, -16 movq %rsp, %rbp Ltmp8: .cfi_def_cfa_register %rbp subq $80, %rsp leaq -8(%rbp), %rdi callq __ZN3BobC1Ev leaq -16(%rbp), %rdi...

John, I'm still not sure what you're talking about, I have included the assembly output from two compilations, one with a user explicit catch-all, one with only an implicit cleanup, the DWARF Action Table and Types Table are absolutely identical, as are the indexes used to reference the Action Table from the region maps. -Peter Lawrence.

Hi Bill, > Please read this proposal and send me your comments, suggestions, and concerns. this proposal looks great to me. Thanks for working on it. I have a few minor comments, see below. > //===-------------------------- > // The 'landingpad' Instruction > // > > The 'landingpad' instruction replaces the current 'llvm.eh.exception' and >

...the assembler. Perhaps the same goes for catches > and so on: is a global really needed and not its name? > I'm hesitant to do this because the machinery for printing out the correct global value's representation in assembly is already in the code. So it knows how to print: .long ___gxx_personality_v0+4 at GOTPCREL as opposed to .long L___gxx_personality_v0$non_lazy_ptr-. L___gxx_personality_v0$non_lazy_ptr: .indirect_symbol ___gxx_personality_v0 At least for the Mac, it's much easier to do it the GV way... :-) > Finally, rather than baking cleanups, filters etc into the IR, I suppo...

What? Yet another EH proposal?! This one is different from the others in that I'm planning to start implementing this shortly. But I want your feedback! I've all ready gotten a lot of feedback from Chris, John, Jim, Eric, and many others. Now is your turn! Please read this proposal and send me your comments, suggestions, and concerns. -bw