similar to: [LLVMdev] Exception Handling Proposal - Second round

Hi Bill, there are a couple of things I didn't understand about your proposal, for example how it interacts with inlining, whether it is feasible to do the "turn invoke-of-Unwind_Resume into a branch" optimization and also whether in "resumedest" you still plan to use _Unwind_Resume to continue unwinding up the stack. Could you please show what the LLVM IR would look like

This is a revision of the second exception handling proposal I sent out. You can see it here: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2010-November/036484.html After much discussion, there are some changes to the proposal – some significant and some minor. One major point, this proposal does not address the issue of catching an exception thrown from a non-invoke instruction. However if done

I was thinking about this last night, and I came up with a third alternative which I think looks very promising. It’s basically a re-working of the previous alternative to use the landingpad concept rather than arbitrary fake logic, but it uses a single landing pad for the entire function that mimics the logic of the personality function to dispatch unwinding calls and catch handlers. I believe

On Dec 10, 2007, at 11:38 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: >>> ... If you force a "cleanup" by changing the selector call to: >>> %eh_select8.i = tail call i32 (i8*, i8*, ...)* >>> @llvm.eh.selector.i32( i8* %eh_ptr.i, i8* bitcast (i32 (...)* >>> @__gxx_personality_v0 to i8*), i32 0) >>> then it doesn't work either: the unwinder observes that

Hi Dale, > #include <cstdio> > class A { > public: > A() {} > ~A() {} > }; > void f() { > A a; > throw 5.0; > } > main() { > try { > f(); > } catch(...) { printf("caught\n"); } > } this example indeed shows the problem. Let me explain to see if we agree on what the problem is. Suppose we don't artificially

Here is an alternative proposal to Bill's. It is closer to what we already have (which can be seen as a good or a bad thing!), and is also closer to what gcc does. It is more incremental than Bill's and introduces fewer new concepts. Executive summary ----------------- Remove the personality and list of catches out of eh.selector and stick them directly on invoke instructions. The

Hi Dale, > No, I don't want to change the semantics of invoke, at least I don't > think so. > When inlining, I want the inlined throw to reach cleanup code as it > does. > But I want the Unwind_Resume call that ends the cleanup code to be > replaced with a control transfer to the handler (or cleanup) in the > calling > function, i.e. the inliner needs to know

On Dec 9, 2007, at 1:01 PM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Dale, > >> #include <cstdio> >> class A { >> public: >> A() {} >> ~A() {} >> }; >> void f() { >> A a; >> throw 5.0; >> } >> main() { >> try { >> f(); >> } catch(...) { printf("caught\n"); } >> } > > this example

The poor interaction between exception handling and inlining in LLVM is one of the main motivations for the new exception handling models proposed recently. Here I give my analysis of the origin of the problem in the hope of clarifying the situation. Soon after dwarf exception handling was implemented in LLVM, I noticed that some programs would fail when compiled at -O3, for example the

(Mail system seems to have eaten this, sorry if it's a repeat) On Dec 8, 2007, at 12:48 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Dale, > >> - Why was C++ claiming that every selector has a catch-all handler? > > this is easy: because the semantics of invoke require it. Yes, > really. > If unwinding reaches an invoke then control is required to jump to the > unwind basic

On Dec 1, 2010, at 1:37 PM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Executive summary > ----------------- > > Remove the personality and list of catches out of eh.selector and stick them > directly on invoke instructions. > > The invoke instruction > ---------------------- > > The invoke instruction is modified by adding extra catch info to it: > > <result> = invoke

Hi everyone! I've been silently working on the previous exception handling proposal I published last year (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2009-November/027311.html). However, there were some major deficiencies in it. After discussing this further with Jim Grosbach and John McCall, we've come up with another proposal. As you can see, it incorporates the idea of

On Dec 1, 2010, at 1:37 PM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Inlining > -------- > > Many a plausible seeming exception handling scheme has fallen by the way-side > because it interacts poorly with inlining. > > Here is how inlining would work with this scheme. It's pretty close to how > it works right now. Suppose you have > > invoke void @foo() > to

here are the cpp file: $ cat -n eh1.catch.cpp 1 #include <iostream> 2 3 int main() 4 { 5 try { 6 throw 78; 7 } 8 catch (int){ 9 10 std::cout << "at catch\n"; 11 12 } 13 } LLVM-IR: $ llvm-g++ -S -emit-llvm eh1.catch.cpp -o eh1.catch.ll ... 46 define i32 @main() {

On Nov 24, 2010, at 11:18 AM, John McCall wrote: > On Nov 24, 2010, at 5:36 AM, Bill Wendling wrote: >> Ah ha! I think I had a different mental model than you did. Or at least I remembered things differently from the discussion. :-) For me, there is one dispatch per region, which is why I had the region number associated with the invokes as well as the "unwind to" edge coming

On Nov 24, 2010, at 5:07 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > On Nov 24, 2010, at 11:18 AM, John McCall wrote: > >> On Nov 24, 2010, at 5:36 AM, Bill Wendling wrote: >>> Ah ha! I think I had a different mental model than you did. Or at least I remembered things differently from the discussion. :-) For me, there is one dispatch per region, which is why I had the region number

Hi, catch_all.cpp: 1 int main() 2 { 3 try { 4 throw 34; 5 } 6 catch (...) {} 7 } llvm-gcc -O3 -S -emit-llvm catch_all.cpp -o catch_all.ll: 1 ; ModuleID = 'catch_all.cpp' 2 target datalayout =

I've been looking into a new way to implement exception handling in LLVM. The current model has many disadvantages, in my opinion. I try to address them with this proposal. I also try to make exception handling much more understandable to the normal human reader. :-) Any new proposal will need to address all present and future languages' exception handling methodologies. I

Hi Bill, > This is similar to my first proposal. yup, I still consider your first proposal to have been basically sound. But it also suffers from a major problem, > which stopped that proposal dead in its tracks. Namely, you have information in > one place which needs to be shared in two different, but possibly disjoint, > places: the type, filters, and personality information. In

Hi Reid, Thanks for the input. You wrote: > The @_Z4testv.unwind.1 helper just calls ~Inner(), but not ~Outer. That’s actually intentional. The thing to keep in mind is that all of the landing pads are going to be effectively removed by the time the final object image is generated. They are just there to facilitate the table generation, and in the __CxxFrameHandler3 case they don’t mean