similar to: [LLVMdev] RFA: Problem with Exceptions

Hi Bill, > I'm compiling this trivial program on Darwin: > > int main(int argc, char **argv) { > try { > throw argc; > } catch(int i) { > return i; > } > > return 0; > } > > However, it segfaults when I run it. I've attached the .s files > generated by LLVM and GCC, but it looks as if LLVM isn't generating a >

On Aug 30, 2007, at 3:31 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm compiling this trivial program on Darwin: > > int main(int argc, char **argv) { > try { > throw argc; > } catch(int i) { > return i; > } > > return 0; > } > > However, it segfaults when I run it. I've attached the .s files > generated by LLVM and GCC, but it

Hi, I'm trying to get exception handling working in my compiler targetting LLVM. I've been working from the LLVM exception handling documentation (including http://llvm.org/docs/ExceptionHandling.html and http://wiki.llvm.org/HowTo:_Build_JIT_based_Exception_mechanism) and looking at g++-llvm's output. I've been trying to get a minimal test function to work, which simply invokes

Hi James, > I've been trying to get a minimal test function to work, which simply > invokes _Unwind_RaiseException with a single clean-up landing pad. > However. when I run it my personality function is not getting called - > _Unwind_RaiseException simply returns apparently doing nothing. Looking > at the x86-64 assembly output from llc, I can see this is happening >

2010/1/22 Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> > Hi James, > > > I've been trying to get a minimal test function to work, which simply >> invokes _Unwind_RaiseException with a single clean-up landing pad. However. >> when I run it my personality function is not getting called - >> _Unwind_RaiseException simply returns apparently doing nothing. Looking at

Hi Bill, is this a 64 bit machine? If so, did you make any adjustments based on http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2007-August/010489.html ? Thanks, Duncan.

John, I'm still not sure what you're talking about, I have included the assembly output from two compilations, one with a user explicit catch-all, one with only an implicit cleanup, the DWARF Action Table and Types Table are absolutely identical, as are the indexes used to reference the Action Table from the region maps. -Peter Lawrence.

Duncan, > Hi Bill, is this a 64 bit machine? If so, did you make > any adjustments based on > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2007-August/010489.html ? This is 32 bit machine. 64 bit will definitely won't work due to bunch of stuff unimplemented: dwarf builtins, stack layout description, etc. -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov. Faculty of Mathematics &

Bill, ooops, yes, I described the meaning of "throw(A)" backwards, but I still think my example shows why you cannot merge LandingpadInst while inlining because multiple filter-lists on a LandingpadInst don't make sense. Perhaps I'm reading your original spec wrong, perhaps I'm mis-reading Duncan's emails, but I read them to mean that your syntax supports

Hi Chris, > ... Claiming that a function has a > > catch-all handler when it does > > not causes the unwinder to go into a loop. this is the bit I don't understand. Why does it go into a loop? How can the unwinder possibly know that the original code did not have a catch-all, since we tell it which catches there are and we say: there is a catch-all! > > -

On Dec 8, 2007, at 12:51 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Chris, > >> ... Claiming that a function has a >>> catch-all handler when it does >>> not causes the unwinder to go into a loop. > > this is the bit I don't understand. Why does it go > into a loop? How can the unwinder possibly know that > the original code did not have a catch-all, since we

Hi Dale, > > this is the bit I don't understand. Why does it go > > into a loop? How can the unwinder possibly know that > > the original code did not have a catch-all, since we > > tell it which catches there are and we say: there is > > a catch-all! > > The unwinder works by doing a stack crawl to find a handler. Since > we're telling it

On Dec 10, 2007, at 11:38 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: >>> ... If you force a "cleanup" by changing the selector call to: >>> %eh_select8.i = tail call i32 (i8*, i8*, ...)* >>> @llvm.eh.selector.i32( i8* %eh_ptr.i, i8* bitcast (i32 (...)* >>> @__gxx_personality_v0 to i8*), i32 0) >>> then it doesn't work either: the unwinder observes that

Duncan, > I see a call to terminate in the llvm assembler. Where did that > come from? I compiled with llvm-gcc-4.0 and llvm-gcc-4.2 and > didn't see such a call. std::terminate() is called by __cxa_throw, if unwinding fails. I think the source of problem was my frame_to_args_offs patch. So, let's wait for retest :) -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov. Faculty of

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

Hi Dale, > No, I don't want to change the semantics of invoke, at least I don't > think so. > When inlining, I want the inlined throw to reach cleanup code as it > does. > But I want the Unwind_Resume call that ends the cleanup code to be > replaced with a control transfer to the handler (or cleanup) in the > calling > function, i.e. the inliner needs to know

On Dec 9, 2007, at 1:01 PM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Dale, > >> #include <cstdio> >> class A { >> public: >> A() {} >> ~A() {} >> }; >> void f() { >> A a; >> throw 5.0; >> } >> main() { >> try { >> f(); >> } catch(...) { printf("caught\n"); } >> } > > this example

Hi Dale, > > ... Suppose we don't artificially add catch-alls to > > selectors. Then > > the above example compiles to: > > ... > I wasn't advocating this; agree it is wrong. it's maybe not as wrong as it seems since having an empty selector is equivalent to having a cleanup (IIRC) :) > > ... If you force a "cleanup" by changing the

(Mail system seems to have eaten this, sorry if it's a repeat) On Dec 8, 2007, at 12:48 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Dale, > >> - Why was C++ claiming that every selector has a catch-all handler? > > this is easy: because the semantics of invoke require it. Yes, > really. > If unwinding reaches an invoke then control is required to jump to the > unwind basic

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