search for: thrown

...about inlining EH information yet. > OK :)  Essentially what happens is as follows: when running destructors > when exiting a scope (which may be a nested scope), if a destructor throws > an exception then any remaining destructors are first run, then the > Program_Error exception is thrown at the point of the scope exit.  This > may be caught by an enclosing handler. That's a neat model. What happens if two (or more) exceptions are thrown while you're cleaning up another? For instance, if A's destructor also throws an exception? A's exception was not thrown whil...

Hi Renato, >> OK :) Essentially what happens is as follows: when running destructors >> when exiting a scope (which may be a nested scope), if a destructor throws >> an exception then any remaining destructors are first run, then the >> Program_Error exception is thrown at the point of the scope exit. This >> may be caught by an enclosing handler. > > That's a neat model. > > What happens if two (or more) exceptions are thrown while you're > cleaning up another? For instance, if A's destructor also throws an > exception? in th...

..." > > if you attempt to merge the landing pad for these functions (perhaps > assuming it is going to be simple because there are no cleanups in either > function that would complicate things) then... > > there has to be a filter for A that will terminate the program if A is thrown, > but you cannot terminate the program if exception A comes from frob() > since it has not exception specification. > > > my conclusion is that you can only merge landing-pads if they already > have *identical* filters, so multiple filter lists isn't mathematically possible...

Dear LLVM Members, The below source code from gcc test suite replicates the problem which i am facing. When it is built with clang, it throws an abort (highlighted). The following are my observations - 1. The object(tmp) is not getting destroyed immediately after the exception is thrown. In case of Clang, the object is getting destroyed at a later point of time. 2. In case of gcc, the scope of the object created inside the try-catch block is limited to the block. Once the exception is thrown, the object(tmp) is destroyed. 3. The assembly files for both clang and gcc were generat...

...foo(); ... ; frob(); ...}" if you attempt to merge the landing pad for these functions (perhaps assuming it is going to be simple because there are no cleanups in either function that would complicate things) then... there has to be a filter for A that will terminate the program if A is thrown, but you cannot terminate the program if exception A comes from frob() since it has not exception specification. my conclusion is that you can only merge landing-pads if they already have *identical* filters, so multiple filter lists isn't mathematically possible. thoughts ? comments ? -P...

...o drop a reference” which is defined in llvm/lib/IR/Metadata.cpp line 136. I create DebugLoc objects using DebugLog:get(unsigned line, unsigned Col, MDNode *Scope, MDNode *InlinedAt=nullptr) The DebugLoc objects are wrapped in one of my classes and when instances get destructed the assertion is thrown. Would anyone have an idea what I’m doing wrong that causes this? Best, Christian Schafmeister Professor Chemistry Department Temple University

Hi All, I'm trying to catch an exception that is "passed through" an LLVM ExecutionEngine but I am unable to do so. Specifically, in C++ code, inside a try/catch block, I call a JITted function, which in turn calls back into my code. Everything works fine unless an exception is thrown; I would except the outermost try/catch(...) block to catch the exception thrown in my innermost C++ code, but instead I get the abort "terminate called after throwing an instance of 'MyException'". I am compiling the system with g++ (on Linux and OSX); I haven't tried MSVC++...

...here.... it's difficult, but > I'll try... ;) OK :) Essentially what happens is as follows: when running destructors when exiting a scope (which may be a nested scope), if a destructor throws an exception then any remaining destructors are first run, then the Program_Error exception is thrown at the point of the scope exit. This may be caught by an enclosing handler. For example, in pseudo C++ code: { ... do some stuff ... { ... declare a variable A with a destructor that does not throw ... declare a variable B with a destructor that throws ... ... do so...

On 3 March 2017 at 11:34, John Hodrien <J.H.Hodrien at leeds.ac.uk> wrote: > On Fri, 3 Mar 2017, Tony Mountifield wrote: > >> You mean just thrown away, or archived somewhere? Just thrown away would >> seem rather irresponsible... > > > Mirroring EPEL makes sense well before this point, as they don't keep old > versions of packages online either AFAIK. > > jh > > Indeed they aren't kept ... and since the...

...h is largely implemented in c. For some of my data, the package occasionally (and quite stochastically) encounters a particular condition which halts its operation. At this point, it calls the error() function defined by Rcpp, and halts. What I would like to be able to do is to catch the error thrown, and retry the operation a few times before giving up. However, when I wrap the call to flowClust in try() or tryCatch(), the error seems to completely bypass them: Examples: 1. This is a trivial example just to test the try() function, and correctly assigns the error to the variable x: &gt...

...lse, and that if these have different exception-specifications, then we can translate into different DWARF Action and Types Tables, each call has it's own (in this case unique) Actions. second, do you agree that if one exception-spec says to unexpected() if anything other than 'A' is thrown, and another exception-spec says to unexpected() if anything other than 'B' is thrown, that these cannot be merged --> by that I mean they cannot have the same landingpad <-- ? -Peter Lawrence. On Aug 4, 2011, at 5:11 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > On Aug 4, 2011, at 4:03 PM, P...

On 25 November 2010 11:03, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > I don't understand what you are saying.  Cleanups (e.g. destructors) Hi Duncan, Cleanup landing pads normally call destructors, but they're not a destructor themselves. I'm simply saying that compiler generated blocks (such as cleanups) should never depend on user variables. But I get what you're

In article <CAGkb5vexU7eoU=-ASF_uPN_PA68QQi2RU0HdPhozZEYDE0VqEg at mail.gmail.com>, James Hogarth <james.hogarth at gmail.com> wrote: > > This is especially important if you use anything from EPEL as EPEL5 will be > removed when RHEL goes EOL. You mean just thrown away, or archived somewhere? Just thrown away would seem rather irresponsible... Cheers Tony -- Tony Mountifield Work: tony at softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk Play: tony at mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

..." install ..." (extra space added for emphasis). ________________________________ From: CentOS <centos-bounces at centos.org> on behalf of isdtor <isdtor at gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2019 9:47:20 AM To: CentOS mailing list Subject: [EXTERNAL] [CentOS] Bash completion thrown by quoted option args? There was a thread about C7 bash completion back in August last year, but it doesn't have answers for this problem. Example: "yum install /path/to/local/package" works fine with tab completion to fill in the path and package bits. However, "yum --debugle...

Starting maybe ~ 12 hours ago, the proverbial floodgates were thrown open on emails sent to the CentOS-announce mailing list for CentOS 5.x, all on account of individual package releases. RedHat have not done the same. What's up? Are these mistakenly released re-announcements of (previously released) package updates? Or, did the mailman server have a burp or...

...> } Except I don't have code like that. Again, the object is *not* constructed by a normal function, but a JIT'd function. Since LLVM knows nothing about C++ or destructors, I certainly have to call the destructor manually, e.g., obj->~Class();, for the case where no exception is thrown. My JIT'd code looks like: %item = type { [16 x i8] } %singleton_iterator = type { [24 x i8] } %add_iterator = type { [24 x i8] } define void @program(void* %result) { entry: ; alloc raw space for x on the stack %x = alloca %item, align 8 ; alloc raw space for y on the stack %y = al...

...ver, *defining* a function in a C TU implies that it will not throw an exception. What isn’t clear to me still is : why shouldn't this be transitive? In the example you’re showing, for a caller of f() in bar, what is the advantage of knowing that f() is nounwind if it an exception can still be thrown? What does it allow? — Mehdi > > On Sun, Feb 5, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Andrew Kelley via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > from http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html <http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html>: > > nounwind &gt...

...elete( void *v_that ) { > item *const that = static_cast<item*>( v_that ); > that->~item(); > } > > Given that I have to call the thunks to run the d'tors manually in the normal control-flow case, it would seem that I would also have to call them in the exception-thrown control-flow case -- right? > In the cases above, you've allocated in some capacity. The d'tor of a pointer is...nothing. It doesn't do anything. You have to manually call "delete" on the pointer. E.g.: Bar *foo() { Bar *b = new Bar(); return b; // b goes out...

Xen patchbot -unstable wrote: > # HG changeset patch > # User emellor@leeni.uk.xensource.com > # Node ID da24df1ea484cf72dc9d367d52e828777e0e20cd > # Parent c1bb4eb565296bdb00aed84fcc877befbcebd8e9 > Improve error handling, in particular fixing the ProtocolError that is thrown > when a domain is specified by the user that does not exist. Added a few > error codes -- many more to come, I expect. > > Signed-off-by: Ewan Mellor <ewan@xensource.com> > > diff -r c1bb4eb56529 -r da24df1ea484 tools/python/xen/xend/server/XMLRPCServer.py > --- a/tools...

There was a thread about C7 bash completion back in August last year, but it doesn't have answers for this problem. Example: "yum install /path/to/local/package" works fine with tab completion to fill in the path and package bits. However, "yum --debuglevel="1" install ..." just gets stuck and doesn't offer anything. The only option is to type everything