similar to: [LLVMdev] http://llvm.org/apt/precise/ broken for 3.4?

Hi, On 15.04.2014 23:44, Vadim Chugunov wrote: > Hi, > I am curious - how does clang deal with epilogue-less functions that > result from _Raise_Exception being marked 'noreturn'? > I've also been playing with Kai's patch, and discovered that this tends > to greatly confuse Windows stack unwinder in cases when noreturn call is > at the end of a function, so

On 11 December 2013 05:41, Kai Nacke <kai.nacke at redstar.de> wrote: > Maybe we should also change the stack probing code. I think ___chkstk_ms is > used since gcc 4.6. It simplifies the prologue generation code a bit. I just checked gcc 4.6 and looks like you are right, it uses ___chkstk_ms. LGTM. We should probably commit this first, since it is common for gcc 4.6 and newer.

Hi all! On x86_64, segment prefix fs: is in address space 257 and gs: in address space 256. (BTW: are there constants for these magic values?) How can I use this in IR? I want to express this assembler code in IR: mov RAX, 8; mov RAX, GS:[RAX]; ret; I tried the following: define i64 @getStackBottom(i64 %addr) { entry: %ptr = inttoptr

Can you clarify what you mean by "real SEH handling"? My company has me looking at this in the hopes that I can make LLVM capable of building windows drivers. If you mean "visual c++ style SEH", I'm fairly sure that isn't necessary for my purposes, but it would be nice. If you mean "something that works at all," then your concern about generalizing LLVM

Hi Rafael, is there a repository with the static pages or should I simply produce a diff between the 2 versions? Regards, Kai On 03.12.2013 14:30, Rafael Espíndola wrote: > Can you send a patch? > > On 2 December 2013 06:44, Kai Nacke <kai at redstar.de> wrote: >> Hi! >> >> I like to submit some updates to the LLVM website regarding the LDC >> compiler.

On 12 December 2013 14:01, Kai Nacke <kai.nacke at redstar.de> wrote: > Hi Rafael, > > is more approval needed to commit? No, go for it. Cheers, Rafael

Hi! I like to submit some updates to the LLVM website regarding the LDC compiler. All links are currently out-of-date. The following pages need updates: On page http://www.llvm.org/Users.html, please replace the existing entry "LLVM D Compiler" in section "Open Source Projects" with: <tr> <td><a href="http://wiki.dlang.org/LDC/">

Hi Rafael, is more approval needed to commit? Regards, Kai On 12.12.2013 00:56, Rafael Espíndola wrote: > On 11 December 2013 05:41, Kai Nacke <kai.nacke at redstar.de> wrote: >> Maybe we should also change the stack probing code. I think ___chkstk_ms is >> used since gcc 4.6. It simplifies the prologue generation code a bit. > > I just checked gcc 4.6 and looks like

Hi! I created a bug report (https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=23712) for this failure but then I realized that my approach may be wrong. The following D source contains a lazy variable: void bar(lazy bool val) { val(); } The lazy variable val is translated to a delegate. The signature and the first IR lines are: define void @_D7opover23barFLbZv({ i8*, i1 (i8*)* } %val_arg) #0 {

Can you send a patch? On 2 December 2013 06:44, Kai Nacke <kai at redstar.de> wrote: > Hi! > > I like to submit some updates to the LLVM website regarding the LDC > compiler. All links are currently out-of-date. The following pages need > updates: > > On page http://www.llvm.org/Users.html, please replace the existing entry > "LLVM D Compiler" in section

Hi Russel, I never tried to build LLVM with nmake. With msbuild it works without problems. You can find a short desription here: http://wiki.dlang.org/Building_and_hacking_LDC_on_Windows_using_MSVC, section Build LLVM. Regards Kai On 24.08.2013 21:15, Russell Wallace wrote: > I'm trying to build LLVM 3.3 using cmake/nmake, Microsoft C++ 2012, on a > 64-bit Windows 7 system. I

Hi! I am still working on the Win64 EH code and now have a pretty usable result. (The MC part is already posted to llvm-commits, the other part follows soon. If you are curious the whole patch is here: http://www.redstar.de/ldc/win64eh_all_20130524.diff.) However, in one case I have a problem with LLVM being too smart. Consider the following D code: void doIt() { printf("doIt:

Maybe we should also change the stack probing code. I think ___chkstk_ms is used since gcc 4.6. It simplifies the prologue generation code a bit. Regards, Kai On 10.12.2013 02:18, Rafael Espíndola wrote: > Mingw switched abis with the release of gcc 4.7 > (http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.7/changes.html). The main change is that now > mingw (like msvc) given thiscall calling convention to

In summary we have no less than six patches required to support Win64 SEH MinGW. The first five could be committed after review and LGTM but the last one also requires Ray Donnelly approval. Please comment in the Phabricator so the comments would be kept in context. 'unreachable' trap http://reviews.llvm.org/D3417 Win64 SEH (LLVM) http://reviews.llvm.org/D3418 Win64 SEH (clang)

Hi Jb, It's good to see someone step up and take a shot as this again. I dropped this because it seems to me it wasn't a high priority task for LLVM/Clang. Implementing SEH is more of LLVM work than Clang work. For 32-bit SEH, there are prologue/epilogue instruction sequence to emit, setting try-level ([ebp-4]), recovering EBP ([ebp-18h]), and all these can only happen in LLVM, not

Hi, I'd like to submit a patch to match the clang patch on the front end. http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20140414/103257.html The front end doesn't need this patch to work but it's still important. This is mostly based on work done by kai from redstar.de Could I get some feedback on this? I'm not sure if the emitting of the register names will effect

I'm trying to build LLVM 3.3 using cmake/nmake, Microsoft C++ 2012, on a 64-bit Windows 7 system. I tried it with the 32-bit compiler as a test case first and that appeared to work, then with the 64-bit compiler in the hope that would give me a 64-bit build of LLVM, but instead got this error message: [ 86%] Generating X86CompilationCallback_Win64.obj Microsoft (R) Macro Assembler (x64)

Hi, PR17975 was caused by r191059 which was reverted on the 3.4 branch in r196521. However, the problem still occurs with trunk (confirmed as of r206186). >From a thread on cfe-commits I see that Kai Nacke (the author of r191059) was working on a patch to fix PR17975, but the conversation ends: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20131202/197968.html So my question

Hi! Implementing the Memory::allocateMappedMemory() function on z/OS, I see a failure in the AArch64 COFF test case. The test case has 3 sections. For each section, Memory::allocateMappedMemory() is called to reserve memory. If the distance between the pointers gets too large, then the test case fails. It can be reliable produced with a distance of 1MB between the pointers. An easy way to

Happy new year to all! The attached patch adds TLS support for x86_64-pc-win32 and x86-pc-win32. Implemented is the implicit TLS model (__declspec(thread) in Visual C++). Please review. Thanks! Regards Kai -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: tls20120101.diff URL: