similar to: [LLVMdev] ExceptionDemo patch

Hi Garrison, Does r101453 fix this? -Chris On Mar 22, 2010, at 12:35 PM, Garrison Venn wrote: > Ok, I've isolated the recent additions that cause the issue and supplied a patch which is NOT meant > to be applied, but instead solely exists for identification purposes for those who know what they are doing. :-) > The patch is offset from HEAD. > > The patch is a hack which

Forgot to add platform with issue: OS X 10.6.2. I have not tested elsewhere. Garrison On Mar 18, 2010, at 14:20, Garrison Venn wrote: > Hi Chris, > > The MCSymbol r98459 patch of llvm seems to have broken the ExceptionDemo example. As the example is dying in the > associated personality's first unwind search phase, which happens to have no language specific context, and is

Ok, I've isolated the recent additions that cause the issue and supplied a patch which is NOT meant to be applied, but instead solely exists for identification purposes for those who know what they are doing. :-) The patch is offset from HEAD. The patch is a hack which removes use of the MCSymbol::isDefined(...) method, as its use happens to break in the exception JIT context; both in

The attached patch is an updated version of a previous example patch submitted to the list. Although the previous patch was never added to the repository, I'm submitting the new version for consistency sake, and to see if anyone is interested in porting this to windows. This version conforms to the latest mainline (2.7), and no longer includes any system include files. However there is a

Hi Chris, The MCSymbol r98459 patch of llvm seems to have broken the ExceptionDemo example. As the example is dying in the associated personality's first unwind search phase, which happens to have no language specific context, and is returning a _URC_CONTINUE_UNWIND, I believe the issue is generic and not specific to the example. However I'm not sure why then this wasn't seen in one

Ok, see llvm/examples/ExceptionDemo/ExceptionDemo.cpp For OS X and Linux, build llvm with the environmental variable BUILD_EXAMPLES set to 1(csh: setenv BUILD_EXAMPLES 1). If llvm is already built, it will only build the examples from clang and llvm, ExceptionDemo being one of those. If I understand your case, running ExceptionDemo with an arg of -1 emulates your scenario. Note that the

Attached is a patch for the non ExceptionDemo demos which gets rid of the old const qualifier usage for Type. Although I recently commited the ExceptionDemo changes, I did not want to touch code that I did not "own" without other's approval. Even though trivial, I did not test this patch. Garrison -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name:

I'm seeing the following result on code which has run successfully before on Linux, and currently successfully runs on OS X 10.6.x: Stack dump: 0. Running pass 'X86 DAG->DAG Instruction Selection' on function '@outerCatchFunct' Segmentation fault This process was built as part of the LLVM tree with: setenv CC /usr/local/bin/gcc setenv CFLAGS -march=i686 setenv CXX

Sorry, these IRBuilder methods are really in IRBuilderBase. Garrison On Jul 11, 2011, at 11:54, Garrison Venn wrote: > Are the get type methods for IRBuilder, such as const IntegerType *getInt32Ty(), going to have > their return type const qualifiers removed? Doing so would match the semi equivalent static > methods of Type, such as static IntegerType *getInt32Ty(LLVMContext &C).

Yes, I did -- it made no difference. Should it? Note that I have since discovered that this is not a problem on Windows -- the exception drops through as expected. pz On 2011-07-21, at 5:45 PM, Garrison Venn wrote: > Sorry Peter, just saw this. > > If you are still having the problem: > > Did you set: llvm::JITExceptionHandling = true; ? > > Garrison > > On Jul

Hi, in ExceptionDemo code ( https://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/examples/ExceptionDemo/ExceptionDemo.cpp?view=markup&sortby=file ) the function "ourPersonality" is defined. a llvm::Function is created with the same name inside function "createStandardUtilityFunctions". The llvm::Function is retrieved in function "createCatchWrappedInvokeFunction".

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

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:

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. >

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

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: charles quarra <charllsnotieneningunputocorreo at gmail.com> Date: 2012/12/13 Subject: error while linking modules with exception handling demo code To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Hi, I am building a module X with an arithmetic function foo, a module Y with an arithmetic function foo2 that invokes foo. For the invocation be a proper one (being

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

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

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.