similar to: [LLVMdev] Does someone still keep eye on MC ARM EHABI?

Hello > My question is, to avoid duplicate effort, > does someone take charge of this part? or > does anyone is already implementing this currently? > > BTW, any suggestion on this effort? I'm very appreciated! There are several directions here: 1. Binary emission. Right now MC layer is text-only and depends on assembler 2. Correctness issues. It's believed that unwinding

Dear Renato and Anton, Big thanks to your help. Those references are very helpful! BTW, After I applying this patch from Logan Chien, I pass some examples on ARM assembly emission. It seems good to me. http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=7187#attach_9161 For object file emission, The first thing is making MC generate correct .ARM.exidx and .ARM.extab. I will keep tracing that. Thanks!

I thought the ARM EHABI added a twist to this because it created some upward dependency from the unwinder to libc++abi. Other than that, I don’t have any strong feeling where it lives. -Nick On Jan 30, 2015, at 12:33 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 30 January 2015 at 20:17, Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org> wrote: >> There is a valid

Folks, We're having some discussions about the behaviour of exception handling and Dwarf sharing unwind logic, tables, etc. and it seems that the code around it wasn't designed with any particular goal in mind, but evolved (like the EHABI) and now we're seeing the results from it. The problems below are assuming C vs. C++, but it actually apply to any possibly-exceptional vs.

> 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

Hi Timo, We are observing some weird behaviour when we try to rename an inferior folder, followed by the superior folder. These folders have an asterisk in the name. * LIST (\HasChildren) "." "*Own Family" * LIST (\HasChildren) "." "*Own Family.Tour" * LIST (\HasNoChildren) "." "*Own Family.Maid" * LIST (\HasNoChildren)

Hi all,         I found some problem when trying to use exception handling with LLVM (SVN revision 152113) + clang combination (SVN revision 152115). I am observing failure in __gnu_unwind_pr_common unwind-arm.c (gcc/config/arm dir in gcc 4.5.3 source). Personality routine 0 is used.           Inside __gnu_unwind_pr_common after "switch (((offset & 1) << 1) | (len & 1))"

On 15 March 2014 17:06, Logan Chien <tzuhsiang.chien at gmail.com> wrote: > I would like to know what do you mean by "commoning them up"? Hi Logan, That'd be reducing ARM directives in favour of CFI, but as I said (and you too), GNU compatibility will probably be an issue for a very long time. > For the space issue, I personally don't think this is a big issue.

On 6 February 2014 19:21, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk> wrote: > > if (nounwind) > can't unwind > can't unwind == unwind table + no EH directives + no EH table if (uwtable || (!nounwind && need uwtable to unwind)) > unwind table > "need unwind table to unwind" is probably true in almost all cases. At least in all where

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

Hi Keith, Anton, Logan, Last time we spoke about ARM unwinding, we agreed to have both CFI and directive variants in ARM, so that both EH and debuggers/profilers could correctly unwind the stack. The problem, obviously, is that we now have redundant information and I decided to have a go commoning them up. One of the issues, I think, is GNU compatibility (so GAS can generate the tables correctly

> From: Renato Golin [mailto:renato.golin at linaro.org] > > We're having some discussions about the behaviour of exception handling and Dwarf > sharing unwind logic, tables, etc. and it seems that the code around it wasn't > designed with any particular goal in mind, but evolved (like the EHABI) and now > we're seeing the results from it. > > The problems below

Hi, I was comparing the way LLVM generates the exception table and it looks a bit different from what GCC (arm-none-eabi-g++) generates. Maybe that's because clang is not generating ARM IR when I do: $ clang -c -emit-llvm -march=arm -mcpu=cortex-a8 -mtriple=arm-none-eabi exception.cpp -o exception.clang.bc clang: warning: argument unused during compilation: '-mcpu=cortex-a8' clang:

I'd love to hear more details. Are you saying that this infinite loop is a limitation of EHABI table format, and not something that can be fixed in the compiler? Meanwhile, please notice that gcc behavior matches current clang behavior that I described above. We would not want to create an incompatibility. On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 8:42 PM, Logan Chien <tzuhsiang.chien at gmail.com>

Hello Everyone, This is my first attempt to getting used with the submission process. Trying to get the "good practice" with the coding standard, tools, mailing lists... and already a few questions: - Is it possible to "link" 2 related entries in Phabricator ? one for LLVM and one for CFE ? what's the best way of posting 2 related or dependent patches ? - I'd

All, Have already got Samba 3 and W2K Ad intergrating working in production without any problems. I have set up a test domain to test W2K3 and Samba3 on a Red Hat 8 server. I did the following: * Have set up the NTP Daemon to synchronize time with the W2K3 domain controller. * installed the latest Kerberos packages for Red Hat 8, maid sure that krb5-workstation is installed. * installed the

Hi, I am a final year French student doing an internship at the University of Portsmouth. As I was taking hands on AddressSanitizer I took a look at BoundsChecking (both are in the lib/Transforms/Instrumentation folder). I found nothing on it except for the LLVM Documentation and references to BaggyBoundsCheck (which is not the same project. As far as I understood it is part of the SAFECode

> Subclassing MCELFStreamer is probably also necessary to implement mapping > symbols on ARM ELF targets (see the current thread at > http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.llvm.cvs/124737). > > Your refactoring patch on phabricator appears to be a functional subset of the one > I've posted (though obviously not textually identical). As a smaller patch, it may be

Hi, :If I compile this file with debugging enabled (clang/LLVM TOT) int main() { } I get the error Error: inconsistent uses of .cfi_sections From the 2.27 binutils assemblers. It seems that 2.27 doesn't like the .cfi_sections .debug_frame directive following previous .cfi directives. The assemblers seem to be happy if the .cfi_sections directive precedes any other .cfi directive. Is