similar to: [LLVMdev] C++ Exception Handling Problem

Hi, Nyx wrote: > Hello, > > I'm in the process of creating a JIT and I've run into a problem with > exception handling. The situation I'm in is that my program will JIT > functions, which will call native C++ functions (part of the run-time > support). These native functions can throw exceptions. However, I don't > actually want to handle these exceptions in

Duncan Sands wrote: > > Hi Nyx, > >> I'm in the process of creating a JIT and I've run into a problem with >> exception handling. The situation I'm in is that my program will JIT >> functions, which will call native C++ functions (part of the run-time >> support). These native functions can throw exceptions. However, I don't >> actually want

Hi Nyx, > I'm in the process of creating a JIT and I've run into a problem with > exception handling. The situation I'm in is that my program will JIT > functions, which will call native C++ functions (part of the run-time > support). These native functions can throw exceptions. However, I don't > actually want to handle these exceptions in the JITted functions.

Fair enough, you win this round. ;P (Which actually makes me happy as that makes things a lot more consistent and sensible.) -J -------------------------------------------------- From: "Argiris Kirtzidis" <akyrtzi at gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 12:32 PM To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] MS C++ gives

Jay Freeman (saurik) wrote: > Those rules only apply to if and switch statements. (Yes, this is insane, > but true.) The entire section you are quoting from, 6.4, is titled > "Selection statements [stmt.select]", which specifically covers these two > cases. A for is an iteration statement, not a selection statement. > See 6.4p2: "The rules for conditions apply

Those rules only apply to if and switch statements. (Yes, this is insane, but true.) The entire section you are quoting from, 6.4, is titled "Selection statements [stmt.select]", which specifically covers these two cases. A for is an iteration statement, not a selection statement. So, if you read 6.5.3p1 (which is actually about for statements) it states that a for loop is rewritten

Jay Freeman (saurik) wrote: > gcc is correct. According to the ISO specification, the for-init-statement > is supposed to inject any variable names into the same declarative scope as > the condition of an equivalent restructuring of the loop in the form of a > while statement, which in turn fronts the declaration to an extra scope that > surrounds the /entire/ loop construct.

gcc is correct. According to the ISO specification, the for-init-statement is supposed to inject any variable names into the same declarative scope as the condition of an equivalent restructuring of the loop in the form of a while statement, which in turn fronts the declaration to an extra scope that surrounds the /entire/ loop construct. VC++ seems to be scoping the variables as if they were

Dear Maxime, Nyx wrote: > Hello, > > I would like to know how to go about printing the x86 assembly output for a > compiled function (I'm using the JIT). I saw there is a X86IntelAsmPrinter > on doxygen. However, it takes several arguments I don't know how to fill in. > Is there a helper function to create such a pass? Once I have the pass > created, do I just add it

I'm catching up on this. Does this mean LLVM x64 JITTed code is not exception friendly or you can't catch exceptions inside LLVM JITTed code. The first one seems to indicate that the code is not ABI friendly or that not enough information is present to notify Windows of unwind tables. I'll ask the question another way: Does LLVM emit enough information so that RtlAddFunctionTable can

Hello, I would like to know how to go about printing the x86 assembly output for a compiled function (I'm using the JIT). I saw there is a X86IntelAsmPrinter on doxygen. However, it takes several arguments I don't know how to fill in. Is there a helper function to create such a pass? Once I have the pass created, do I just add it to a FunctionPassManager? Thank you for your time, -

That's encouraging. Assuming that all access to the JITted code is going to be done through a function pointer, and all JIT code is ephemeral, why is the object container format important? In fact, why is it even needed? I found it somewhat odd that MCJIT generates an object file for even the JIT case. To answer my own question, could it be that advanced JIT's may need/want to use things

Hi Bjoern, I'm trying to make exceptions run. I have an Object file with a function, > throwing a 1 and a second function which should catch the 1. Normal JITTING > under Windows showed me, that I have an unresolved reference to the virtual > table of type_info. Some experiments later I was able to load "msvcrt.lib" > as an archive and could resolve the reference. Nice -

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=104421 Bug ID: 104421 Summary: System freeze on wayland with nouveau on NV137 (GP107) Product: xorg Version: unspecified Hardware: Other OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: medium Component: Driver/nouveau Assignee:

I've just installed RC2 and I'm very excited about the quality. It's so much better than MP3. This is the first version I've used since I just found out about Ogg Vorbis. I did notice that very high frequencies seem to be missing but since not many people can hear much above 18 KHz it's not much of an issue. I suppose this resolves the hiss problem so prevalent in MP3.

I am using LLVM to compile script code and then executing using the JIT compiler via the runFunction() method. The script code is contained with a C++ program compiled with G++. I am having a problem when an intrinsic function (i.e. a function implemented in C++ which is called from the LLVM compiled script) throws a C++ exception. I want the exception to be caught by the C++ code that invoked the

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

> I tried loading the "msvcrt.lib" as a archive. That was... a bad idea! > I get a Exception while loading: > Assertion failed: ((int64_t)Result <= INT32_MAX) && "Relocation > overflow", file > \lib\executionengine\runtimedyld\Targets/RuntimeDyldCOFFX86_64.h, line 81 It's a limitation of the COFF/PE format and unrelated to exceptions. This patch

Argiris Kirtzidis <akyrtzi at gmail.com> writes: > I gave it a try and unfortunately it doesn't seem practical to use > CMake-produced VC++ projects. Every time you run CMake so that the VC++ > projects include new files, the entire solution gets rebuilt. I recall some discussion about the behavior you describe on the cmake ml, but can't find it right now. IIRC, once

Hello, Argiris > Any ideas? 1. Make sure, that you don't mix dwarf and stabs debug information. AFAIR, this can really mess the things 2. It can be, that debug information emitted is not correct. This is known open problem. -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov. Faculty of Mathematics & Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University.