similar to: [LLVMdev] ARM EABI Exceptions

Hello, Renato > Anyone has any idea on the status of exception handling in clang/LLVM? > DwarfException cannot be easily overwritten, and adding target specific > code to it seems wrong... Neither llvm-gcc nor clang support exceptions on ARM (except, maybe, sjlj excheptions on arm/darwin). I have some patched uncommitted for EH on ARM but they are too far from being complete. -- With

> -----Original Message----- > From: Anton Korobeynikov [mailto:anton at korobeynikov.info] > > Neither llvm-gcc nor clang support exceptions on ARM (except, maybe, > sjlj excheptions on arm/darwin). I have some patched uncommitted for > EH on ARM but they are too far from being complete. Hi Anton, Are you actively working in that area? I did some experiments and managed to

> Is it safe to say the MC work provides a (new) foundation for > implementing ARM EH? Or, is providing ARM EH independent of the ARM-MC > work? The latter. MC stuff helps somehow though. -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University

On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 09:14:05AM -0700, Jason Kim wrote: > On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Dennis Taul <dtaul at codeaurora.org> wrote: > > > > I am new to LLVM but have perused the code alongside using llvm-gcc > > and CLANG to build ARM EABI objects. > > > > Based on this superficial analysis it appears that LLVM currently does > > not support the

All, I just committed r185596 which removes some exception-related ISD opcodes. If you have an out-of-tree target that supports DWARF exception handling, that probably broke your build. Just delete these lines from your XXXISelLowering.cpp file: - setOperationAction(ISD::EHSELECTION, MVT::i32, Expand); - setOperationAction(ISD::EXCEPTIONADDR, MVT::i32, Expand); The lowering

Hello, Renato > Are you actively working in that area? No, I started to experiment with ARM EH ~year ago, but never had anything complete, unfortunately > My main concern is that DwarfException is not extensible at all. I can't inherit from it (DwarfWriter creates it directly) and there are no call backs to target-specific code (nor registration of such mechanism). Why do you need

On May 19, 2010, at 2:37 AM, Renato Golin wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >>> My main concern is that DwarfException is not extensible at all. I >>> can't inherit from it (DwarfWriter creates it directly) and there are >>> no call backs to target-specific code (nor registration of such >>> mechanism). >> >> Why do you need this? My

Greetings, I'm trying to implement exception handling in my front end. I have a prototype working using the Itanium ABI on Linux x86_64, but I'm not sure how to proceed for other platforms. So I was wondering: which OS/architecture combinations support zero-cost EH, and which support SJLJ? My main concern is keeping the IR for call sites platform independent. Right now, it looks like to

On Feb 9, 2013, at 4:14 PM, Anthony Bryant <antjbryant at gmail.com> wrote: > Greetings, > > I'm trying to implement exception handling in my front end. I have a > prototype working using the Itanium ABI on Linux x86_64, but I'm not > sure how to proceed for other platforms. > > So I was wondering: which OS/architecture combinations support > zero-cost EH,

Hi Bill, Thanks for the response, I just have a couple more questions. On 11 February 2013 06:45, Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> wrote: > As far as which OS/architectures support zero-cost EH and which > support SJLJ, LLVM is designed to assume that Intel supports zero-cost > exceptions and ARM supports SjLj exceptions. However, it's all in the > personality function

On 18 April 2016 at 16:18, Silviu Baranga <Silviu.Baranga at arm.com> wrote: > This doesn't look like something ACLE specific (I can't find it in the ACLE doc). Sorry, I didn't mean it was ACLE, only that you guys were fiddling with macros. :) > This seems to be a generic macro. I think it would make sense to define it > if we know we're emitting ELF. Since the

On 18 April 2016 at 16:33, Silviu Baranga <Silviu.Baranga at arm.com> wrote: > Doing a grep "eabi" * -R | grep darwin in llvm I found the test divmod-eabi.ll > which uses the triple armv7-apple-darwin-eabi. What format does that have? Certainly not ELF. :) But I didn't mean "has eabi on triple", but "is in none-eabi mode", which may have to check a

I'm facing a problem with functions arguments. ARM EABI defines that 8-bytes arguments must be 8-bytes aligned. For example: void @f(i32 %a, i64 %b) ARM EABI: r0 <- %a r2,r3 <- %b Darwin: r0 <- %a r1,r2 <- %b void @g(i32 %a, i32 %b, i32 %c) ARM EABI or Darwin: r0 <- %a r1 <- %b r2 <- %c The problem is: I can't differ a i64 argument of two i32 arguments in

Attached is a port of the new ARM eabi from gcc 4.1 to the llvm-gcc branch. With this patch I am able to bootstrap the 4.0 branch using the new eabi. The llvm-gcc branch fails with ------------------------------------ internal compiler error: in prune_unused_types_update_strings, at dwarf2out.c:14372 ------------------------------------ But I believe that this is an unrelated problem and I will

On Feb 8, 2007, at 10:46 AM, Lauro Ramos Venancio wrote: > I'm facing a problem with functions arguments. ARM EABI defines that > 8-bytes arguments must be 8-bytes aligned. For example: > > void @f(i32 %a, i64 %b) > > ARM EABI: > r0 <- %a > r2,r3 <- %b Ok. I suppose this makes it easier to use 64 bit store instructions. > > Darwin: > r0 <- %a >

On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 01:58:29PM +0000, Renato Golin wrote: > I can see the error, and it's just a bad selection of choices. I was > wrong in assuming that the "eabi" at the end would always force it: > > $ clang -target arm-elf-eabi -S mod.c -o - | grep mod > .file "mod.c" > bl __modsi3 > bl __umodsi3 I was discussing this with Tim on IRC and he

On 16 April 2016 at 01:44, Zhao, Weiming via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I'm building libunwind for ARM baremetal using clang. > I notice that __ELF__ is used in libunwind and the macro is only defined for > Linux target on ARM. > Should we also predefine that for arm-none-eabi target? Do you mean in Clang's ARMTargetInfo::getTargetDefines() ? I think

On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 07:56:26AM +0000, Tim Northover wrote: > Hi Joerg, > > > At the moment, this will call __modsi3 and __umodsi3, even though those > > functions are not part of AAPCS. Should this be considered a lowering > > bug in the ARM target? > > LLVM actually supports both variants, depending on the target. The > __aeabi_* functions are part of the

Dear all, I am using initramfs and from the kernel document, I know klibc. So i decide to use it. We are working on marvell pxa310 (bought from Intel), and with the tools chain from marvell, I comple klibc as follows: klibc-1.5> ln -s /home/zjujoe/svn/mhlv_2.6/working/songlixin/20081007_kernel_tflashupdate/ linux klibc-1.5>cat 1.sh export KLIBCARCH=arm export

On 9 December 2013 11:51, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de> wrote: > Part of the concern is that the same code using / does call __aeabi_idiv > and __aeabi_uidiv. Hi Joerg, I can see the error, and it's just a bad selection of choices. I was wrong in assuming that the "eabi" at the end would always force it: $ clang -target arm-elf-eabi -S mod.c -o - |