search for: __z3barv

Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "__z3barv".

Did you mean: _z3barv
2011 Jul 28
0
[LLVMdev] LLVMdev Digest, Vol 85, Issue 50
...n maps. What compiler are you talking about, and on what platform? The results I'm seeing clearly have both gcc and clang on Darwin generating different LSDAs for your cleanup examples and your catch-all examples. Here is the output I see from gcc-4.2 for your cleanup example: .text .globl __Z3barv __Z3barv: LFB2: pushq %rbp LCFI0: movq %rsp, %rbp LCFI1: pushq %rbx LCFI2: subq $40, %rsp LCFI3: leaq -17(%rbp), %rdi call __ZN3BobC1Ev leaq -18(%rbp), %rdi call __ZN3BobC1Ev leaq -19(%rbp), %rdi call __ZN3BobC1Ev LEHB0: call __Z3foov LEHE0: <snip> .section __TEXT,__gcc_except_t...
2011 Jul 28
2
[LLVMdev] LLVMdev Digest, Vol 85, Issue 50
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.
2011 Aug 05
0
[LLVMdev] RFC: Exception Handling Rewrite
...0 So the call to "foo" is marked as being able to throw an "A" type. (The 0x7f in the action record table is a negative 1-based offset into the exception specification table, which itself is a positive 1-based offset into the type table.) Now look at bar: .align 4,0x90 .globl __Z3barv __Z3barv: . . . LEHB2: call __Z3bazv LEHE2: . . . GCC_except_table1: LLSDA9: .byte 0xff # @LPStart format (omit) .byte 0x9b # @TType format (indirect pcrel sdata4) .byte 0x59 # uleb128 0x59; @TType base offset .byte 0x3 # call-site format (udata4) .byte 0x41 # uleb128 0x41; Call-site tab...
2011 Aug 05
3
[LLVMdev] RFC: Exception Handling Rewrite
Bill, ooops, yes, I described the meaning of "throw(A)" backwards, but I still think my example shows why you cannot merge LandingpadInst while inlining because multiple filter-lists on a LandingpadInst don't make sense. Perhaps I'm reading your original spec wrong, perhaps I'm mis-reading Duncan's emails, but I read them to mean that your syntax supports
2009 Sep 25
2
[LLVMdev] MinGW/MSVC++ uses different ABI for sret
...ct S { double dummy1; double dummy2; }; S bar(); S foo() { return bar(); } This is the result of g++ -c -S -O2 (focus on the final `ret'): __Z3foov: LFB0: pushl %ebp LCFI0: movl %esp, %ebp LCFI1: pushl %ebx LCFI2: subl $20, %esp LCFI3: movl 8(%ebp), %ebx movl %ebx, (%esp) call __Z3barv pushl %eax movl %ebx, %eax movl -4(%ebp), %ebx leave ret $4 This is the result of cl -O2 -c -Fa (again, focus on the final `ret') PUBLIC ?foo@@YA?AUS@@XZ ; foo EXTRN ?bar@@YA?AUS@@XZ:PROC ; bar ; Function compile flags: /Ogtpy ; COMDAT ?foo@@YA?AUS@@XZ _TEXT SEGMENT $T2548 = -16...