similar to: [LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Code generation for noexcept functions

John, I'm still not sure what you're talking about, I have included the assembly output from two compilations, one with a user explicit catch-all, one with only an implicit cleanup, the DWARF Action Table and Types Table are absolutely identical, as are the indexes used to reference the Action Table from the region maps. -Peter Lawrence.

On Jul 28, 2011, at 2:22 PM, Peter Lawrence wrote: > John, > I'm still not sure what you're talking about, I have included the assembly > output from two compilations, one with a user explicit catch-all, one with only an > implicit cleanup, the DWARF Action Table and Types Table are absolutely identical, > as are the indexes used to reference the Action Table from

Hey everybody! I have been using llvm 2.8 (i know ancient history!) for a backend that i was implementing. I have been trying to port my patches to latest llvm (svn build) lately but i have one problem as far as the Exception Handling mechanism is concerned. It seems that there are no Exception Tables generated any more such as the one below: .section .gcc_except_table,"a", at

Hi Yiannis, > I have been using llvm 2.8 (i know ancient history!) for a backend that i was > implementing. I have been trying to port my patches to latest llvm (svn build) > lately but i have one problem as far as the Exception Handling mechanism is > concerned. It seems that there are no Exception Tables generated any more such > as the one below: got some example bitcode for

On 09/02/2011 05:58 PM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Yiannis, > >> I have been using llvm 2.8 (i know ancient history!) for a backend that i was >> implementing. I have been trying to port my patches to latest llvm (svn build) >> lately but i have one problem as far as the Exception Handling mechanism is >> concerned. It seems that there are no Exception Tables generated

On Jul 28, 2011, at 8:41 AM, Peter Lawrence wrote: > In short the problem is that there is an ambiguity between a cleanup handler having > an Action Table entry that looks like > .byte 1 ;; Type = 1 (ie #1 entry in Types Table) > .byte 0 ;; Next = 0 (ie none, ie this is the list terminator for this try-statement) > together with a corresponding Types Table entry #1 that looks

Hi Yiannis, >>> I have been using llvm 2.8 (i know ancient history!) for a backend that i was >>> implementing. I have been trying to port my patches to latest llvm (svn build) >>> lately but i have one problem as far as the Exception Handling mechanism is >>> concerned. It seems that there are no Exception Tables generated any more such >>> as the one

On Jul 27, 2011, at 11:10 AM, John McCall wrote: > >> 4) IIUC, llvm has inherited a bug from gcc where the debugger >> cannot let the user know an exception is >> going to be uncaught until after the stack has been unwound -- >> contrary to the design intentions of the >> unwind library that most exception implementations are based on >> (with a two

Hi all, I'm compiling LLCM IR code like this on x86-64: define linkonce ccc <16 x float> @vector_add_float(<16 x float> %a.78, <16 x float> %a.79) align 8 { entry: %result.80 = fadd <16 x float> %a.78, %a.79 ret <18 x float> %result.80 } This works really well when the vector length (16 in the above) is an integer multiple of the SSE vector

On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 9:58 PM, Ryan Prichard via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > 2. *Termination landing pads.* > > Clang sometimes uses a landing pad that calls __clang_call_terminate to > terminate the program. GCC instead leaves a gap in the call site table, > and the personality routine calls std::terminate. For the 4MB > libQt5Core.so sample I'm

I'm trying to find a way to emulate a floating point instruction, say a floating point add. My understanding is that in order to do that I need to execute setOperationAction(ISD::FADD, (MVT::f32, Expand); setOperationAction(ISD::FADD, (MVT::f64, Expand); in MyTargetISelLowering.cpp, MyTargetLowering::MyTargetLowering(...). However for some reason I'm still seeing a floating point add in

Hi, I'm investigating the size of Clang's generated binaries relative to GCC, when targeting Android, and I've noticed that Clang's exception tables are much larger -- the .ARM.extab section is about 2.5 times as large in two examples. I noticed a couple of differences between Clang and GCC: 1. *ULEB128 encoding.* In the call site table, GCC encodes offsets using a ULEB128

Hi, I wanted to propose an IR extension that would allow us to support zero-cost exception handling for non-call operations that may trap. I wanted to start with loads and stores through a null pointer, and later we might extend this to div/rem/mod zero. This feature is obviously useful for implementing languages such as Java and Go which deterministically translate such operations into

I recently noticed a difference between the way GCC and LLVM treat sign extension for parameters and return values on x86-64. I could not find a clear answer in the x86-64 ABI [1] concerning whether parameters should be sign extended by the caller or callee and similarly whether return values should be sign extended by the caller or callee. Consider a simple 'signed char' division

2011/12/9 Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de> > On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 10:03:37AM +0100, Seb wrote: > > I think my explanation is not clear, my front-end did NOTt generate > > 'llvm.memcpy' it generate LL code that after use of LLVM 'opt' get > > transformed by 'loop-idom' pass into an 'llvm.memcpy' for an overlapping >

Hi Reid, I've been working on the outlining code and have a prototype that produces what I want for a simple case. Now I'm thinking about the heuristics for recognizing the various logical pieces for C++ exception handling code and removing them once they’ve been cloned. I've been working from various comments you've made earlier in this thread, and I'd like to run something

HI, When compiling the open-source software cryptopp (https://www.cryptopp.com/#download <https://www.cryptopp.com/#download>) version 5.6.4 I found a strange issue with the IR generated. The issue only appears when compiling with -O2 optimisation in the integer.cpp file (the function is _ZN8CryptoPPrsERNSt3__113basic_istreamIcNS0_11char_traitsIcEEEERNS_7IntegerE ->

> We should also think about how to call std::terminate when cleanup dtors throw. The current representation for Itanium is inefficient. As a strawman, I propose making @__clang_call_terminate an intrinsic: … That sounds like a good starting point. > Chandler expressed strong concerns about this design, however, as @llvm.eh.get_capture_block adds an ordering constraint on CodeGen. Once

This example generates the following error: .Ltmp3: .Ltmp5: .Ltmp13: .word (.Ltmp5-.Ltmp3)-.Ltmp13 ./llvm-mc ex.s -filetype=obj LLVM ERROR: expected relocatable expression when using: -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

I wonder why AVX is not used automatically if available at the host machine. In contrast to that, SSE41 instructions (like pmulld) are automatically used if the host machine supports SSE41. E.g. $ cat avx.ll define void @_fun1(<8 x float>*, <8 x float>*) { _L1: %x = load <8 x float>* %0 %y = load <8 x float>* %1 %z = fadd <8 x float> %x, %y store