similar to: [LLVMdev] setjmp/longjmp interoperable between llvm and gcc?

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 16:53:58 -0600 (CST), Chris wrote: >On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Kurt Harriman wrote: >> I would like to build an x86 executable consisting of a number of >> subsystems (mostly legacy C code). One subsystem will be compiled >> to native code using llvm. It calls, and is called by, the other >> subsystems, many of which have to be compiled using gcc

Hi, I have some code which has sigsetjmp / longjmp. After a longjmp, unreachable is inserted, which is fine. The problem is that in the backend before calling longjmp, some register was spilled to a stack location which is live across the jmp. I mean, it will be live after jumping. The stack location was initialized before the call to setjmp, and is used afterwards. Is there any bug in handling

I'm trying to make sense in the support for setjmp/longjmp in Clang and LLVM, with only partial success. I'll try to summarize my findings in the hope that someone can shed some light on why things are the way they are and what I'm missing. Clang. Clang recognizes two forms of setjmp (all I say here applies to longjmp similarly): * __builtin_setjmp: gets lowered to calling the

On Oct 4, 2011, at 3:53 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Khaled ElWazeer > <khalid.alwazeer at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I have some code which has sigsetjmp / longjmp. After a longjmp, unreachable >> is inserted, which is fine. The problem is that in the backend before >> calling longjmp, some register was spilled to a

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Khaled ElWazeer <khalid.alwazeer at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I have some code which has sigsetjmp / longjmp. After a longjmp, unreachable > is inserted, which is fine. The problem is that in the backend before > calling longjmp, some register was spilled to a stack location which is live > across the jmp. I mean, it will be live after

That code should do it, but I realized you only detect setjmp functions by name. My code is calling "__sigsetjmp" not "segsetjmp". You only support these functions: static const char *ReturnsTwiceFns[] = { "_setjmp", "setjmp", "sigsetjmp", "setjmp_syscall", "savectx", "qsetjmp",

I'm trying to get unwind to work. I was unable to get an unwind example to work directly, so I decided to compile a c program that uses setjmp and longjmp and work backwards. I keep running into a "Abort trap" problem, whatever "Abort trap" is. Anyway, here's an example of a C program that compiles and works properly under normal gcc, but that fails with an

Commit-ID: d7d16afbdae9bdea83aeb26ac572e6fc4d7d4940 Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/?p=libs/klibc/klibc.git;a=commit;h=d7d16afbdae9bdea83aeb26ac572e6fc4d7d4940 Author: Steve McIntyre <steve at einval.com> AuthorDate: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 18:13:34 +0100 Committer: maximilian attems <max at stro.at> CommitDate: Sun, 1 Jul 2012 22:51:00 +0200 [klibc] arm/setjmp.S: fix longjmp

It seems straightforward to implement, if it just needs to be functionally correct. I have another question about setjmp/longjmp. When the following program is compiled and run with argument 10 (./a.out 10), should it print 10 or 23? I am asking this question because it prints 23 when compiled with gcc and prints 10 when compiled with clang. If it is supposed to return 23, it seems to me that

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 03:55:53PM -0700, Jim Grosbach wrote: > The builtins are for internal compiler use in the context of SjLj > exception handling. Any other use, including any direct calls of the > builtins in user code, are a bad idea with no guaranteed behaviour. > That they're exposed at all is, again, for historical purposes. Don't use them. Why is longjmp converted

Hi, In our (non-C) compiler we use setjmp/longjmp to implement exception handling. For the initial implementation LLVM backend, I'm keeping that model. In order to ensure that changes performed in a try/setjmp==0 block survive the longjmp, the changes must be done via volatile operations. Given that volatility is a property of individual load/store instructions rather than of memory slots in

On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 02:23:01PM +0100, Jonas Maebe via llvm-dev wrote: > Recap: we use setjmp/longjmp for our exception handling on all platforms in > our regular (non-LLVM) code generators. I'd like to use the same > infrastructure with the LLVM code generator for code interoperability > purposes (the LLVM SjLj personality is not binary-compatible with our > existing

On 30/09/16 20:10, Reid Kleckner wrote: > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 4:42 AM, Jonas Maebe <jonas-devlists at watlock.be > <mailto:jonas-devlists at watlock.be>> wrote: > > So, can I use invoke and landingpad without using any of the other > exception handling intrinsics? (in combination with a dummy personality > function) Or will LLVM in all cases insist on

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Greg Pettyjohn wrote: > I'm trying to get unwind to work. > > I was unable to get an unwind example to work directly, > so I decided to compile a c program that uses setjmp > and longjmp and work backwards. > > I keep running into a "Abort trap" problem, whatever "Abort trap" is. > > Anyway, here's an example of a C

On Apr 12, 2011, at 3:15 PM, Jim Grosbach wrote: > If you want an automated method, then using the source code re-writer interfaces in clang is probably a reasonable starting place. Just modifying the source code manually is probably easier, though, to be honest. > > As a moderate caveat to all of this, there are some bits of code out there that use these builtins that are very tightly

First I try it with bytecodes: ~/compiler/temp$ llvmgcc sjmp01.c -o sjmp01 ~/compiler/temp$ ./sjmp01 Hello World! Abort trap Same results for lli sjmp01.bc Now I try converting to native code: ~/compiler/temp$ llc sjmp01.bc -enable-correct-eh-support -o sjmp01.s ~/compiler/temp$ gcc sjmp01.s -o sjmp01.native ~/compiler/temp$ ./sjmp01.native Hello World! Bus error ~/compiler/temp$ On Apr 20,

On Apr 27, 2011, at 4:08 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 03:55:53PM -0700, Jim Grosbach wrote: >> The builtins are for internal compiler use in the context of SjLj >> exception handling. Any other use, including any direct calls of the >> builtins in user code, are a bad idea with no guaranteed behaviour. >> That they're exposed at all is,

ARM/Darwin implements them. I'm not aware of any others. That said, they are designed for internal use by the compiler for exception handling. Calling them directly like this is very much not recommended. Using the system library setjmp()/longjmp() functions is preferred. -Jim On Apr 12, 2011, at 1:56 PM, Akira Hatanaka wrote: > Does the X86 backend (or any other backend) correctly

What would be the best way to convert built-in setjmp and longjmp tp library calls? Should it be implemented in clang or in backends? On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: > ARM/Darwin implements them. I'm not aware of any others. > > That said, they are designed for internal use by the compiler for exception > handling. Calling them

The builtins are for internal compiler use in the context of SjLj exception handling. Any other use, including any direct calls of the builtins in user code, are a bad idea with no guaranteed behaviour. That they're exposed at all is, again, for historical purposes. Don't use them. -Jim On Apr 27, 2011, at 3:45 PM, Akira Hatanaka wrote: > Okay. I understand builtin functions do not