similar to: [LLVMdev] Exception Implementation Example added to Wiki

If the powers at be want this, I could easily transform the source to the LLVM coding standards, and add the necessary portable UNIX support--someone else would have to add non-UNIX support although the System library probably helps with this. However I'm guessing the LLVM release flux of the exception system, along with a lack of universal platform, dwarf JIT support might be a hinderance in

On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Garrison Venn <gvenn.cfe.dev at gmail.com> wrote: > I just added an exception example to the wiki intended to be run in a JIT environment. Although this information is heavily date dependent, > as the LLVM exception subsystem will be modified as time goes on, I could have used such an example when I was looking into this; hence the submission. >

On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 5:54 AM, Garrison Venn <gvenn.cfe.dev at gmail.com> wrote: > If the powers at be want this, I could easily transform the source to the LLVM coding standards, and add > the necessary portable UNIX support--someone else would have to add non-UNIX support although the > System library probably helps with this. However I'm guessing the LLVM release flux of the

I've worked around this issue in my test case by simply calling my personality function on program to ensure it's JIT'ed before any unwind happens. -- James 2010/1/22 Garrison Venn <gvenn.cfe.dev at gmail.com> > No, there is no magic. :-) > > To me though, the tools are magic, because I have no clue what they are > doing without looking at them and using them. >

On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 2:36 AM, Garrison Venn <gvenn.cfe.dev at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Bill, > > Thanks for working on this. > > Is there a reference for the function attribute uwtable, or is it to be defined as > part of this effort? It already exists; there's some limited documentation in the LLVM source, but Rafael apparently forgot to add it to LangRef... -Eli

I think so. It also fails the same way on LLVM trunk from last week. The full backtrace is below. It appears that frame #3 is a compilation of __l_personality() and frame #14 is a compilation of f(). The compilation of __l_personality appears to have been triggered by the need to output DWARF information for f(). -- James #0 0x00007ffff6ed84b5 in *__GI_raise (sig=<value optimised out>) at

Interesting. Was this the reason you were getting the recursive compilation error in JIT::runJITOnFunctionUnlocked(...) (isAlreadyCodeGenerating)? Do you have the time to try your test with 2.7? Garrison On Jan 22, 2010, at 17:37, James Williams wrote: > I've worked around this issue in my test case by simply calling my personality function on program to ensure it's JIT'ed

Hi James, Just wanted to update you. As you implied the problem here is that the personality function has to be jitted before the code that contains the corresponding llvm.eh.selector intrinsic instruction is jitted. I verified this by creating a generated version of the personality function which unless I jitted first, gave me the same error when running the code. Since you are using tools

On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Garrison Venn <gvenn.cfe.dev at gmail.com> wrote: > Won't passing llvm::Function* around vs strings (function names), also work, at code generation time, > without the need for a module A dec to module B impl. mapping? > > Garrison Nope. You cannot place a call instruction into one module whose callee is a Function from another module. You

2010/1/22 Garrison Venn <gvenn.cfe.dev at gmail.com> > Hi James, > > Note that the wiki example is a manual JIT example that works directly with > the C++ APIs. As you know, no LLVM tools are used, > just LLVM libraries. I say this to point out, that in the example, the > exception mechanism is under the complete control of the > developer moded by the LLVM libraries.

Hi Eli So I found this in Attributes.h: const Attributes UWTable = 1<<30; ///< Function must be in a unwind ///table What does this mean? In particular what does it mean not to add this as a function attribute to a function? I'm obviously going down the wrong road in my interpretation, as I

No, there is no magic. :-) To me though, the tools are magic, because I have no clue what they are doing without looking at them and using them. As their function is not germane to my current endeavors, I hope to learn about them from this list, and most likely from your postings. I know it is a common approach, but to me I think bitcode generation to JIT runtime is a a cool feature of LLVM.

[sidenote: Please try to avoid extraneous whitespace and line wrapping changes in your patches. It makes it harder to see what you're actually changing] On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 4:57 AM, Garrison Venn <gvenn.cfe.dev at gmail.com>wrote: > Hi Olivier, > > On Feb 25, 2010, at 14:10, Olivier Meurant wrote: > > Hi Garrison, > > I finally come back from holidays and take

Hey all, Attached you will find an experimental patch which allows me to play with a derived JIT class. With this patch I've alleviated my concerns with forcing cross module behavior for all users of JIT. However this introduces some new semantics, and kind of circumvents the EngineBuilder API. More important though, I have not addressed any concern about using stub functions in eager

Several people on this list have reported issues with the linker regarding a named StructType instance with the same name in two different modules being resolved into two StructTypes with different names due to StructType:: setName(…) collision behavior. Looking at BitcodeReader::ParseTypeTableBody(…), I don't see use of LLVMContextImpl::NamedStructTypes or of Module::getTypeByName(…). Nor do

Yes. The issue here, as you pointed out, is that your personality function is not called at all. Even if you did nothing in the personality function, associated with the setup caused by llvm.eh.selector, but returned _URC_CONTINUE_UNWIND (8), it should still be called. Your results are acting like either dwarf exception header info is not emitted (llvm::DwarfExceptionHandling = true; not executed

2010/1/11 Garrison Venn <gvenn.cfe.dev at gmail.com> > I have not tried this, but a linkage type of PrivateLinkage would not add > to the symbol table according > to the doc. > > LLVMSetLinkage(g, LLVMPrivateLinkage); > Thanks - I hadn't thought of that. > > Garrison > > On Jan 11, 2010, at 14:03, James Williams wrote: > > 2010/1/11 Eli Friedman

No problem I'll drop this from our discussion as it really is only germane to my learning path and imagination. :-) I do at this time still have this concern of allowing a user (developer) the right to turn this "cross module linkage" off, but I'm still in the process of understanding your previous comments on this. Thanks again for the help and time by the way. Garrison PS:

Is it consistent to have a Pass instance's run method's implementation use getAnalysisIfAvailable<AnalysisType>() (vs just using getAnalysis< AnalysisType >) when that same instance's getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &au) implementation invokes au.addRequired<AnalysisType>()? For example in the implementation of SelectionDAGISel::runOnMachineFunction(...) (called

Hi Jeffrey, On Feb 26, 2010, at 16:02, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: > [sidenote: Please try to avoid extraneous whitespace and line wrapping changes in your patches. It makes it harder to see what you're actually changing] Sorry just saw some preexisting code was not in 80 columns. > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 4:57 AM, Garrison Venn <gvenn.cfe.dev at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi