similar to: [LLVMdev] Two labels around one instruction in Codegen

Hi Nicolas, > In order to have exceptions for non-call instructions (such as sdiv, > load or stores), I'm modifying codegen so that it generates a BeginLabel > and an EndLabel between the "may throwing" instruction. This is what the > codegen of an InvokeInst does. the rule is that all instructions between eh begin labelN and eh end labelN must unwind to the same

Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Nicolas, > > >> In order to have exceptions for non-call instructions (such as sdiv, >> load or stores), I'm modifying codegen so that it generates a BeginLabel >> and an EndLabel between the "may throwing" instruction. This is what the >> codegen of an InvokeInst does. >> > > the rule is that all

On Nov 5, 2007, at 11:52 AM, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > Hi everyone, > > In order to have exceptions for non-call instructions (such as sdiv, > load or stores), I'm modifying codegen so that it generates a > BeginLabel > and an EndLabel between the "may throwing" instruction. This is > what the > codegen of an InvokeInst does. > > However, when

Looks sane. Thanks. Evan On Feb 1, 2008, at 1:24 AM, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > Dear all, > > Here's a new patch with Evan's comments (thx Evan!) and some cleanups. > Now the (duplicated) exception handling code is in a new file: > lib/ExecutionEngine/JIT/JITDwarfEmitter. > > This patch should work on linux/x86 and linux/ppc (tested). > > Nicolas > Index:

Thx again Evan for the review. Here's a new patch for the JIT in itself. The major changes are: 1) A JITMemoryManager now has a flag saying "I require to know the size of what you want to emit" 2) DwarfJITEmitter is augmented with GetSize* functions 3) JITEmitter::startFunction checks if the JITMemoryManager requires to know the size. If so, it computes it and gives it through the

Dear all, Here's a new patch with Evan's comments (thx Evan!) and some cleanups. Now the (duplicated) exception handling code is in a new file: lib/ExecutionEngine/JIT/JITDwarfEmitter. This patch should work on linux/x86 and linux/ppc (tested). Nicolas -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: jit-exceptions.patch URL:

Hi everyone, Here's a patch that enables exception handling when jitting. I've copy/pasted _many_code from lib/Codegen/DwarfWriter.cpp, so we may need to factorize it, but the functionality is there and I'm very happy with it :) lli should now be able to execute the output from llvm-gcc when using exceptions (the UnwindInst instruction is not involved in this patch). Just add the

On Dec 10, 2007, at 9:52 AM, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Here's a patch that enables exception handling when jitting. I've > copy/pasted _many_code from lib/Codegen/DwarfWriter.cpp, so we may > need > to factorize it, but the functionality is there and I'm very happy > with > it :) Very nice! I don't know enough about EH, someone else

Introduction: We would like to add new keyword to 'sdiv'\'udiv' instructions i.e. 'no-overflow'. This is the updated solution devised in the discussion: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-October/118257.html The proposed keywords: "nof" stands for 'no-overflow' Syntax: <result> = sdiv nof <ty> <op1>,

I've found what appears to be a bug in instcombine. Specifically, the transformation of -(X/C) to X/(-C) is invalid if C == INT_MIN. Specifically, if I have > define i32 @foo(i32 %x) #0 { > entry: > %div = sdiv i32 %x, -2147483648 > %sub = sub nsw i32 0, %div > ret i32 %sub > } then opt -instcombine will produce > define i32 @foo(i32 %x) #0 { > entry: > %sub

Since updating to the LLVM v5.0 Final tag, I am seeing a crash when I enable '-g'. With a Debug build this hits an assertion at line #923 in 'lib/CodeGen/AsmPrinter/DwarfDebug.cpp': assert(EndLabel && "Forgot label after instruction ending a range!"); The values of related variables at this time are: 'Begin' is: DBG_VALUE %I23, %noreg,

Here are a couple things I would try to help triangulate on the problem. Try a vanilla upstream compiler for an in-tree target. (IIRC you have your own target.) If that fails, it's pretty optimal for you because you should be able to reduce a test case and file a PR. If it doesn't fail, that suggests it's either something your target does or doesn't do, or some bug in how

While improving ADCE, i notice that for declare i32 @strlen(i8*) readnone define i32 @test() { ; invoke of pure function should not be deleted! invoke i32 @strlen( i8* null ) readnone to label %Cont unwind label %Other ; <i32>:1 [#uses=0] Cont: ; preds = %0 ret i32 0 Other: ; preds = %0 %exn = landingpad {i8*, i32} personality i32 (...)* @__gxx_personality_v0

Going to keep this RFC short and to the point: TerminatorInst doesn't pull its weight in the type system. There is essentially a single relevant API -- iterating successors. There is no other interesting aspect shared -- the interface itself just dispatches to specific instructions to be implemented. On the flip side, CallInst and InvokeInst have *massive* amounts of code shared and struggle

Hi, I'm not sure. But in your lowered DAG the chain nodes are the first operands for you custom nodes, however for the other nodes the chain is the last operand. I seem to remember that during targetlowering the chain is the first operand and then it seems to switch over after ISelDAG, this confused me and may have something to do with the issue that you are seeing. I really don't

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 10:32 AM Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 2:03 AM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Going to keep this RFC short and to the point: >> >> TerminatorInst doesn't pull its weight in the type system. There is >> essentially a single

We've been putting 1.0 Beta 3 through the paces on our test system, and one of our users pointed out to me that Thunderbird's "labels" behave strangely on the new server. In fact, there used to be a header added to the message via IMAP when Thunderbird placed a label on a message, but as of the switch from 0.99.11 to 1.0beta3, this label header is no longer placed in the

What is the difference between a CallInst and an InvokeInst in LLVM? Is an InvokeInst a CallInst that can throw an exception? Thanks, Ryan

> I've never realy understood how the llvm.invariant intrinsics could be > put into practice. There is the problem that "end" can occur anywhere > as you suggested fixing with a flag. I was under this impression too, but after re-reading the language reference I'm not so sure -- it says about invariant.start: "This intrinsic indicates that until an

On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 1:24 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 10:32 AM Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 2:03 AM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> Going to keep this RFC short and to the