similar to: [LLVMdev] [llvm] Exception Handling

--- On Tue, 2/3/09, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > From: Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] rol/ror llvm instruction set > To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Cc: kasra_n500 at yahoo.com > Date: Tuesday, February 3, 2009, 2:52 PM > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Dale Johannesen

Hi all, Is it too soon to start porting EH code to the new C++ API? Are there sample implementations? llvm.org/demo still uses the old EH gizmos. should we wait for 3.0 release? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110930/3bc09ea9/attachment.html>

--- On Fri, 1/30/09, Török Edwin <edwintorok at gmail.com> wrote: > From: Török Edwin <edwintorok at gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [LLVM][g++] A helping hand > To: kasra_n500 at yahoo.com, "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc..edu> > Date: Friday, January 30, 2009, 8:29 AM > On 2009-01-30 18:19, Kasra wrote: > > Hi All, >

--- On Tue, 2/3/09, Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com> wrote: > From: Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] rol/ror llvm instruction set > To: kasra_n500 at yahoo.com, "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Date: Tuesday, February 3, 2009, 4:20 PM > On Feb 3, 2009, at 3:54 PM, Kasra wrote: > > I guess the

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Kasra <kasra_n500 at yahoo.com> wrote: > > I guess the backends could know about the instructions. But I am not convinced why it is beneficial not to have ROR and ROL instructions within llvm. > I guess I could ask you the opposite question: What is the benefit of having these? They would have to be mappable to the source language in some way. I'm

--- On Tue, 2/3/09, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > From: Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] rol/ror llvm instruction set > To: kasra_n500 at yahoo.com, "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Date: Tuesday, February 3, 2009, 4:17 PM > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Kasra > <kasra_n500

On Feb 3, 2009, at 2:35 PMPST, Mike Stump wrote: > On Feb 3, 2009, at 2:28 PM, Kasra wrote: >> I was looking around the LLVM instruction set and I failed to find >> ROL and ROR instructions. Is there any plans on adding these >> instructions to LLVM? > > Not sure what you mean: He's referring to the LLVM IR, I think, and it's true that doesn't have

On Sep 30, 2011, at 11:02 AM, Charllls Alquarra wrote: > Hi all, > > Is it too soon to start porting EH code to the new C++ API? Nope! :-) > Are there sample implementations? llvm.org/demo still uses the old > EH gizmos. should we wait for 3.0 release? If you're using the LLVM APIs, then looking at how it's implemented in clang is a good start:

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple.com> wrote: > > On Feb 3, 2009, at 2:35 PMPST, Mike Stump wrote: > >> On Feb 3, 2009, at 2:28 PM, Kasra wrote: >>> I was looking around the LLVM instruction set and I failed to find >>> ROL and ROR instructions. Is there any plans on adding these >>> instructions to LLVM? >>

On Feb 3, 2009, at 3:54 PM, Kasra wrote: > I guess the backends could know about the instructions. But I am not > convinced why it is beneficial not to have ROR and ROL instructions > within llvm. > How would it be beneficial to have them, if we already generate them at the target level properly? Adding instructions "just because" doesn't seem wise. -Owen

2010/1/22 James Williams <junk at giantblob.com> > > > 2010/1/22 Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> > >> Hi James, >> >> >> I get the expected output (after changing i32 @llvm.eh.selector() to i64 >>> llvm.eh.selector.i64()) >>> >> >> in top-of-tree, llvm.eh.selector.i64 has been removed (though bitcode will >>

On 26 September 2010 18:56, Nathan Jeffords <blunted2night at gmail.com> wrote: > The syntax for the invoke instruction is a little misleading. %x is a value > that is being generated by the instruction, not passed to is. It is no > different in that regard as to say '%x = call @eh.exception ...'. Since you > don't specify the type in that type of assignment, I chose

I've read and re-read the LLVM exception handling doc, and there are a number of things that aren't clear to me. In the section describing llvm.eh.exception, it says "The backend replaces this intrinsic with the code that accesses the first argument of a call." I don't understand this sentence. A call to what? What is meant by 'accesses' - do you mean

On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 4:19 AM, Renato Golin <rengolin at systemcall.org>wrote: > On 25 September 2010 23:46, Nathan Jeffords <blunted2night at gmail.com> > wrote: > > catch: > > %v = ptrtoint i8 * %x to i32 > > %r = icmp eq i32 %v, 255 > > br i1 %r, label %bad, label %worse > > bad: > > ret i32 -1 > > worse: > > ret i32

Right now llvm-gcc generates exception handling intrinsics, but actual eh codegen (--enable-eh) is turned off. On x86-linux, turning it on generates no new failures in the testsuite, so how about turning it on? The problem is likely to be PPC which claims to support eh but doesn't support it completely yet AFAIK. I suggest setting SupportsExceptionHandling to false for PPC until it is

Hi James, Looking at: %7 = invoke i8* (...)* bitcast (i32 (%struct._Unwind_Exception*)* @_Unwind_RaiseException to i8* (...)*)(i64* %6) to label %8 unwind label %.finally_pad ; <i8*> [#uses=0] I am not sure this is going to work, at least from the way I've played with the system. In my examples the _Unwind_RaiseException(...) is called from a frame (function) called via

I have a question concerning the exception handling tables that we generate. Right now we generate call sites for all of the code in a function, even for code that cannot (or at least shouldn't) throw an exception. E.g., for this code: #include <cstdio> struct Cleanup { ~Cleanup(void) { printf("in cleanup\n"); } }; static void inline_me(void) {

On 2009-01-30 18:19, Kasra wrote: > Hi All, > > I was looking into using LLVM with C++. Currently there is almost no C++ support (C support only). > LLVM is written in C++, has a C++ API, and llvm-gcc frontend can compile C++ programs. What exactly is the C++ support you are missing? Best regards, --Edwin

Hi, I have been away from the list for a while, so do apologize in advance if the topic is slightly off topic here. I have started a hobby project to create a virtual OS library (jos). The idea was to create a set of C API's for operating system specific tasks i.e. File IO, threading and etc. For example: typedef jos_handle jos_thread; jos_thread jos_thread_create(...); void

Hi Jay, > Are you saying that, in the LLVM IR, it would be legal to have an > llvm.eh.exception that *isn't* dominated by convokes (because there's > a direct branch to that catch block), and in that case the call > returns an undefined value? this is already the case (with invoke substituted for convoke). And it would be up to codegen to "peel it > out into its own