Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "lsdas".
Did you mean:
ldas
2011 Jul 28
1
[LLVMdev] LLVMdev Digest, Vol 85, Issue 50
...absolutely identical,
>> as are the indexes used to reference the Action Table from the
>> region 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110728/86139808/attachment.html>
2011 Jul 28
2
[LLVMdev] LLVMdev Digest, Vol 85, Issue 50
...= 1 (ie #1 entry in Types Table)
>> .byte 0 ;; Next = 0 (ie none, ie this is the list terminator for
>> this try-statement)
>> together with a corresponding Types Table entry #1 that looks like
>> .long 0 ;; RTTI pointer == NULL
>
> This is not a cleanup. In the LSDAs for GCC's family of
> personalities, cleanups
> by definition have a zero index into the types table. I think I
> see your confusion,
> though.
>
> LLVM-GCC and Clang used to share a bug where cleanups would sometimes
> be emitted as catch-alls as a workaround to a fla...
2011 Jul 28
0
[LLVMdev] LLVMdev Digest, Vol 85, Issue 50
...oks like
> .byte 1 ;; Type = 1 (ie #1 entry in Types Table)
> .byte 0 ;; Next = 0 (ie none, ie this is the list terminator for this try-statement)
> together with a corresponding Types Table entry #1 that looks like
> .long 0 ;; RTTI pointer == NULL
This is not a cleanup. In the LSDAs for GCC's family of personalities, cleanups
by definition have a zero index into the types table. I think I see your confusion,
though.
LLVM-GCC and Clang used to share a bug where cleanups would sometimes
be emitted as catch-alls as a workaround to a flaw in the inliner. I fixed this
flaw (...
2011 Jul 28
0
[LLVMdev] LLVMdev Digest, Vol 85, Issue 50
...p, the DWARF Action Table and Types Table are absolutely identical,
> as are the indexes used to reference the Action Table from the region 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(%rb...
2011 Jul 28
2
[LLVMdev] LLVMdev Digest, Vol 85, Issue 50
On Jul 27, 2011, at 11:10 AM, John McCall wrote:
>
>> 4) IIUC, llvm has inherited a bug from gcc where the debugger
>> cannot let the user know an exception is
>> going to be uncaught until after the stack has been unwound --
>> contrary to the design intentions of the
>> unwind library that most exception implementations are based on
>> (with a two