search for: rethrowing

On Mar 22, 2012, at 12:28 AM, Bill Wendling wrote: > On Mar 20, 2012, at 7:38 PM, Paul J. Lucas wrote: > >> I've read the docs on LLVM exceptions, but I don't see any examples. A little help? > > I don't think this has anything to do with LLVM's IR-level exception system. It sounds to me like you just need a way to handle C++ exceptions inside of the C++ code

On Mar 20, 2012, at 7:38 PM, Paul J. Lucas wrote: > To recap, on Mar 14, 2012, I wrote: > >> My project has a C++ library that I want to allow the user to use via some programming language to be JIT'd to call functions in said library. For the sake of simplicity, assume the library has classes like: >> >> class item_iterator { >> public: >> virtual

To recap, on Mar 14, 2012, I wrote: > My project has a C++ library that I want to allow the user to use via some programming language to be JIT'd to call functions in said library. For the sake of simplicity, assume the library has classes like: > > class item_iterator { > public: > virtual ~item_iterator(); > virtual bool next( item *result ) = 0; > }; >

I am the author of the *tryCatchLog* package and want to - suppress selected conditions (warnings and messages) - rethrow selected conditions (e.g a specific warning as a message or to "rename" the condition text). I could not find any reliable unique identifier for each possible condition - that (base) R throws - that 3rd-party packages can throw (out of scope here). Is there any

On Sun, 16 Apr 2023 at 12:58, nospam at altfeld-im.de <nospam at altfeld-im.de> wrote: > > I am the author of the *tryCatchLog* package and want to > > - suppress selected conditions (warnings and messages) > - rethrow selected conditions (e.g a specific warning as a message or to "rename" the condition text). > > I could not find any reliable unique

On Mar 22, 2012, at 11:40 AM, Paul J. Lucas <paul at lucasmail.org> wrote: > On Mar 22, 2012, at 12:28 AM, Bill Wendling wrote: > >> On Mar 20, 2012, at 7:38 PM, Paul J. Lucas wrote: >> >>> I've read the docs on LLVM exceptions, but I don't see any examples. A little help? >> >> I don't think this has anything to do with LLVM's

On Mar 23, 2012, at 3:25 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > Let's take your example. You will have code that looks like this: > > extern "C" void thunk_item_M_delete( void *v_that ) { > item *that = 0; > try { > that = static_cast<item*>( v_that ); > that->~item(); > } catch (...) { > that->~item(); > } > } No I

On Apr 8, 2012, at 10:40 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > What gets returned by the landingpad instruction (%0 here) is normally a structure. LLVM doesn't typically treat aggregates as first-class citizens. In particular, you shouldn't store the whole structure to memory like you do to %5. You can use 'extractvalue' to get the different elements of the structure. If you need to

On Mar 23, 2012, at 4:46 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > You need to look at how the equivalent code in C++ looks in LLVM IR. The "do something with x & y" part will be an 'invoke' that lands on at landing pad, where you will then call the d'tor to your allocated object. OK, after a lot of tinkering (and looking at the ExceptionDemo.cpp file), I have something that works

On Mar 23, 2012, at 6:27 AM, Paul J. Lucas wrote: > On Mar 22, 2012, at 5:29 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > >> On Mar 22, 2012, at 11:40 AM, Paul J. Lucas <paul at lucasmail.org> wrote: >> >>> Unfortunately, I'm not following. How is having the code that catches all exceptions in a separate function different from what I proposed (putting the try/catch in the

On Mar 22, 2012, at 5:29 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > On Mar 22, 2012, at 11:40 AM, Paul J. Lucas <paul at lucasmail.org> wrote: > >> Unfortunately, I'm not following. How is having the code that catches all exceptions in a separate function different from what I proposed (putting the try/catch in the thunks)? (Ideally, I want to minimize layers of function calls.) Again

On Mar 23, 2012, at 4:29 PM, Paul J. Lucas wrote: > On Mar 23, 2012, at 3:25 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > >> Let's take your example. You will have code that looks like this: >> >> extern "C" void thunk_item_M_delete( void *v_that ) { >> item *that = 0; >> try { >> that = static_cast<item*>( v_that ); >>

On Apr 11, 2012, at 8:41 AM, Paul J. Lucas wrote: > On Apr 8, 2012, at 10:40 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > >> On Apr 8, 2012, at 8:47 AM, Paul J. Lucas wrote: >> >>> But I assume [the personality function] works only for a *nix/g++ system. My code also needs to work when compiled on Windows using Visual Studio and I'm guessing that it needs a different personality

On Sun, 2023-04-16 at 13:52 +0200, I?aki Ucar wrote: > I agree that something like this would be a nice addition. With the > current condition system, it would be certainly easy (but quite a lot > of work) to define a hierarchy of built-in conditions, and then use > them consistently throughout base R. Yes, a typed condition system would be great. I have two other ideas: By

On Apr 8, 2012, at 10:40 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > On Apr 8, 2012, at 8:47 AM, Paul J. Lucas wrote: > >> But I assume [the personality function] works only for a *nix/g++ system. My code also needs to work when compiled on Windows using Visual Studio and I'm guessing that it needs a different personality function. Where do I get that? > > That's not something

It seems to me that Validations are quite useful for many objects, even ones having nothing to do with ActiveRecord. Common examples are Contact Us forms, multi-step forms, web service paramater validations, etc. I took a look at the source for Validations, and it seems that it is very independent from ActiveRecord. I caught only three depenedencies: 1. validates_numericy --> depends on

On Apr 8, 2012, at 4:20 AM, Bill Wendling wrote: > On Apr 4, 2012, at 9:32 PM, Paul J. Lucas wrote: > >> This all seems to work just fine. I can throw a C++ exception either in a C++ object's constructor or in an ordinary member function and the stack unwinds correctly (the object's destructors are called) and the exception is propagated back up the C++ code that called the

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Steve Cheng <steve.ckp at gmail.com> wrote: > On 2015-05-18 13:32:54 -0400, Reid Kleckner said: > >> >> Right, doing our own personality function is possible, but still has half >> the challenge of using __CxxFrameHandler3, and introduces a new runtime >> dependency that isn't there currently. Given that it won't save

On Apr 4, 2012, at 9:32 PM, Paul J. Lucas wrote: > On Mar 23, 2012, at 4:46 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: [...] > This all seems to work just fine. I can throw a C++ exception either in a C++ object's constructor or in an ordinary member function and the stack unwinds correctly (the object's destructors are called) and the exception is propagated back up the C++ code that called the

Here is a small doc patch based on answers from the list and from the links mentioned. For stylistic consistency I've followed the language in the va_arg description for the analogous situation. Dustin -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: LangRef.unwind.patch URL: