search for: cfi_personality

...st(fp); > test(fp); > } > > The code generated by GCC (ToT, -O3, Linux x64) is: > > .LHOTB0: > .p2align 4,,15 > .globl _Z5test2PFvvE > .type _Z5test2PFvvE, @function > _Z5test2PFvvE: > .LFB1: > .cfi_startproc > .cfi_personality 0x3,__gxx_personality_v0 > .cfi_lsda 0x3,.LLSDA1 > pushq %rbx > .cfi_def_cfa_offset 16 > .cfi_offset 3, -16 > movq %rdi, %rbx > call *%rdi > movq %rbx, %rax > popq %rbx > .cfi_def_cfa_of...

...0 .long L$set$1 .set L$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 __ZN3BobC...

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.

...8** @_ZTId] resume { i8*, i32 } %exn } declare i32 @__gxx_personality_v0(...) -------------- next part -------------- .text .file "../llvm/test/Feature/iload-exception.ll" .globl _Z3barv .type _Z3barv, at function _Z3barv: # @_Z3barv .cfi_startproc .cfi_personality 3, __gxx_personality_v0 .Leh_func_begin0: .cfi_lsda 3, .Lexception0 # BB#0: # %entry pushq %rax .Ltmp3: .cfi_def_cfa_offset 16 .Ltmp0: movb (%rdi), %al .Ltmp1: # BB#1: # %try.cont popq %rdx retq .LBB0_2:...