similar to: [LLVMdev] Question LowerSetJmp

Hi zhangzw, > In llvm src the file llvm/lib/Transforms/IPO/LowerSetJmp.cpp, it > seems for sjlj-eh ? it's not for sjlj-eh. The problem with setjmp/longjmp is that they can jump from one part of a function to any other part, which means that the control-flow graph is pointless; this makes everything more complicated. So how to deal with this? LLVM does have constructs that allow

hi, I'm doing to make llvm backend support sjlj-eh! I have try to use the llvm-IR to generate the sjlj-eh code, but I'm totally despair ! my major problem is that llvm-ir , I mean exception instrinstics are enough for codegen the sjlj-eh code? May I need to modify the llvm-gcc ? or someone can give some advice about llvm-backend 's support sjlj-eh ? best regards

On Feb 26, 2009, at 2:28 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: >> Or virtually identical. Bout the only difference is the number of >> registers saved and the order of those registers. > > What needs to be done to get g++ to use sj/lj style exception > handling? Many different ways, the easiest, most experimental way would be: --enable-sjlj-exceptions

This pains me to ask, because I'm the original author of this pass, but is the LowerSetJmp pass dead? I created a simple program, manually converted it to use the @llvm.setjmp/@llvm.longjmp intrinsics, ran "opt -lowersetjmp" on it, and tried to compile it only to get this: Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64: "___llvm_sjljeh_throw_longjmp", referenced from:

Hi Anton, > > I would expect llvm-gcc to use LLVM's setjmp/longjmp intrinsics and > > then to run the LowerSetJmp pass to turn the intrinsic calls into uses > > of invoke and unwind. At that point, the control flow is explicit, > > isn't it? > Unfortunately, no. You can call setjmp/longjmp on the same jump buffer > multiple times. So, in general it's not

On Feb 26, 2009, at 12:57 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > So LLVM turns setjmp/longjmp > into a bunch of invokes and unwinds, in order to generate correct code > while not having to teach all the optimizers about setjmp/longjmp. > Setjmp/longjmp eh is something different. Or virtually identical. Bout the only difference is the number of registers saved and the order of those registers.

Hi Duncan, >>I don't get it. Sorry my bad English! hehe. >>What has this got to do with determining the >>names "@__cxa_throw" and "@_ZTi"? Record the Information into the MachineModule Info, so in Dwarfwriter or SjLjWriter(my sjlj-eh name) can build the except table correctly! 2009/3/26 Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr>: > Hi zhangzw,

Hi Duncan, thanks ! hehe . >> Why do you want the names anyway? because i 'am working on llvm to support sjlj-eh for my target. for my side, I lookup the llvm invoke instruction to build the sjlj-eh on sjlj-eh it's need store the landing pad index to stack before call __cxa_throw, but it seems no ! in llvm-backend because it only suport dwarf-eh! so i have to build

On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 6:41 PM, Mahadevan R <mdevan.foobar at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:00 AM, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: >> On Mon, 7 Jul 2008, Mahadevan R wrote: >>> While going through the list of intrinsics in Intrinsics.td, I found >>> that it does not match the list given in Language Reference [1]. Does >>>

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

> Or virtually identical. Bout the only difference is the number of > registers saved and the order of those registers. What needs to be done to get g++ to use sj/lj style exception handling? Thanks, Duncan.

Dear list, I want to add SJLJ exception handling to my frontend. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any examples in the documentation as to how to use the intrinsics @llvm.eh.sjlj.setjmp @llvm.eh.sjlj.longjmp @llvm.eh.sjlj.lsda @llvm.eh.sjlj.callsite Is there a way to force Clang to use SJLJ exception handling for C++? That way I would be able to look at its output to learn how to use

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

Hi zhangzw, > >> Why do you want the names anyway? > > because i 'am working on llvm to support sjlj-eh for my target. > for my side, I lookup the llvm invoke instruction to build the sjlj-eh > on sjlj-eh it's need store the landing pad index to stack before > call __cxa_throw, > but it seems no ! in llvm-backend because it only suport dwarf-eh!

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

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:00 AM, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > On Mon, 7 Jul 2008, Mahadevan R wrote: >> While going through the list of intrinsics in Intrinsics.td, I found >> that it does not match the list given in Language Reference [1]. Does >> this mean that they are not to be used / don't work? Or is it just >> that the documentation is

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

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

Hi Duncan, >>are you trying to get the name "@_ZTIi" or "@__cxa_throw"? yes! i want get the name @_ZTi or @__cxa_throw, the latter @__cxa_throw i can get it throw value->getName(), but the @_ZTi it did n't has name! zhangzw thanks 2009/3/26 Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr>: > Hi zhangzw, > >> invoke void @__cxa_throw(i8* %7, i8*

On 6 March 2014 18:09, Mark Seaborn <mseaborn at chromium.org> wrote: > LowerAtomic "lowers atomic intrinsics to non-atomic form for use in a > known non-preemptible environment". LowerInvoke strips out exception > handling by converting invokes to calls, so that landingpads, resumes, etc. > become dead and can be removed by a later pass. > > (As an aside,