search for: crazytarget

...passing in the right information. That is, instead of: rewind i8* %saved_exception_ptr you'd have: rewind void @_Unwind_Resume(i8* %saved_exception_ptr) or: rewind void @_cxa_end_cleanup() or, for targets that want special code sequences for resuming, something like: rewind void @llvm.crazytarget.end_cleanup() This also handily eliminates the problem of EHPrepare having to calculate data flow itself to the rewind instruction. Since Gabor already made most of the world use CallSite, adding a third call-like wouldn't be the end of the world, although I think most operations on calls (in...

Two amendments: > The semantics of the invoke instruction are slightly modified: if an exception > unwinds and it doesn't match anything in the list of catches and filters, > and there is no cleanup, then control doesn't branch to the unwind label, > unwinding simply continues out of the function. in fact the new semantics would be that if an exception doesn't match then

...t is, instead of: > rewind i8* %saved_exception_ptr > you'd have: > rewind void @_Unwind_Resume(i8* %saved_exception_ptr) > or: > rewind void @_cxa_end_cleanup() > or, for targets that want special code sequences for resuming, something like: > rewind void @llvm.crazytarget.end_cleanup() > > This also handily eliminates the problem of EHPrepare having to calculate data flow > itself to the rewind instruction. > > Since Gabor already made most of the world use CallSite, adding a third > call-like wouldn't be the end of the world, although I think...

Here is an alternative proposal to Bill's. It is closer to what we already have (which can be seen as a good or a bad thing!), and is also closer to what gcc does. It is more incremental than Bill's and introduces fewer new concepts. Executive summary ----------------- Remove the personality and list of catches out of eh.selector and stick them directly on invoke instructions. The