Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "no_fail_instruction".
2010 Dec 09
0
[LLVMdev] Inlining and exception handling in LLVM and GCC
...must instead be branched to from the landing
pad. Given this important distinction it may make sense to make landing pad
blocks special in the IR to facility detecting misuse (both pragmatically
and visually).
The following pseudo-IR tries to demonstrate the validity of assignments:
main:
%a = no_fail_instruction
test: unwind to lpad
%r = possible_failing_comparison %a, 0
br %r == 0, label true_block, label false_block
true_block: unwind to lpad
%c = no_fail_instruction
%d = potentially_failing_instruction %c
br label either_block
false_block: unwind to lpad
%e = no_fail_instruction...
2010 Dec 08
2
[LLVMdev] Inlining and exception handling in LLVM and GCC
On 8 December 2010 18:45, Devang Patel <dpatel at apple.com> wrote:
> I do not know EH or details of these proposals. But do not forget, basic blocks are merged/split/deleted, instructions are added/removed/moved/copied/replaced.
Indeed. Having the information in the invoke kinda alleviates this
problem, but removing the invoke syntax will bring that back.
One way to merge two basic