search for: tagbodi

Hi, I’m looking for advice on how to debug a problem with my exception handling code. I’m asking a specific question here - but general advice on how to debug something like this would be greatly appreciated. Is there any way to get a list of landing pad clauses that are active at a particular point in a program? I'd like to get something like a backtrace but listing all active landing pad

Hi Christian, Andy's already covered the major points, but you could consider filing a bug at http://llvm.org/bugs too, especially if you've got a small test-case that demonstrates the issue. Exception handling hasn't been a priority in the past, but as more people adopt LLVM's JIT APIs I suspect it will get more attention, and bug reports will help us figure out what needs doing.

Hi Christian, > I don’t see anything in the Itanium ABI that says I need to call the function that throws an exception with “invoke” to get exception handling to work! AFAICT, it is the design of LLVM IR and its implementation. To catch the exceptions thrown by the callee functions, we should use the invoke instruction along with the landingpad instruction. If you are calling a function

I switched my Common Lisp compiler to use MCJIT on the weekend and ran into a weird problem compiling one particular function. It crashes with an EXC_BAD_ACCESS error in MCJIT::finalizeObject when calling processFDE. The weird part is that the function does not appear to do anything special and I've whittled it down to the minimum size that still causes the crash. If I remove even one

Hi Christian, Thanks for your explanation. I know your situation now. I would suggest you to check the optimization pass used by the JIT compiler, especially IPO/PruneEH.cpp. It will try to add nounwind attribute to functions which will result in the problem you have mentioned earlier. Alternatively, as a workaround, try to add uwtable (function attribute) to the functions that are generated

Hi Christian, Thanks for sharing this. Yaron Keren has been investigating some problems in the EH frame registration code recently, and I think this may be related. It at least sounds similar to the type of variations in behavior based on code size that Yaron was seeing. -Andy -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of

Logan, I need to make a correction of the post that preceded this one! I was wrong when I said this: > When I load the bitcode file for this module and then dump it just before it is JITted, the “uwtable” attribute has disappeared - is this prune-eh doing its work even though it’s not listed above in the list of function pass managers? The “uwtable” attribute does not disappear! I had

This is the only thing that I’ve found that works in terms of getting the exception to propagate out of the JITted function - change the “call” to an “invoke” and hook in the do-nothing landing-pad. https://gist.github.com/drmeister/7a35046f666826206973 Compare line 646 of the file above to the one that I just posted. > https://gist.github.com/drmeister/b97dec956c6ee9ffeb75 The first one

Logan, How would I dump the object file generated by the JIT compiler pipeline? Could you point me to an example of how something like that is done? I’m used to working with the JIT machinery in memory but not writing object files out to disk. I’m have code to generate object files for AOT compilation - is it done the same way? Best, .Chris. On Apr 12, 2015, at 2:27 PM, Logan Chien

Hi, I had similar problems with EH in ELF in RTDyldMemoryManager::registerEHFrames() calling __register_frame(). I'm not sure these problems are related to this problem since your crash happens in RuntimeDyldMachO::registerEHFrames() in its own processFDE (there are two functions named processFDE(), one in RuntimeDyldMachO.cpp and one in RTDyldMemoryManager.cpp) *before*

Do the LLVM Setjmp/Longjmp intrinsics interact with C++ exception handling and execute C++ cleanup actions? I compiled a small example using setjmp/longjmp using clang and they did not execute C++ cleanup actions and calling longjmp bypassed calling destructors on objects that were allocated between the call to setjmp and longjmp. I’m wondering if the LLVM intrinsics behave differently from