similar to: [LLVMdev] Personality function for llvm.gcroot

I’m not sure I understand what you are suggesting in terms of how this should be handled. I agree that the cleanup code is unlikely to be complex, but obviously we still need some way to handle any cases that unlikely but possible. I hadn’t even thought about what might be in a __finally block. I was thinking about destructors being inlined. Obviously that puts a practical limit on what will

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

Hi Reid, Is this design supposed to be able to cope with asynchronous exceptions? I am having trouble imagining how this would work without adding the ability to associate landing pads with scopes in LLVM IR. Vadim On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com> > wrote:

Hi, I have a question about the IR model for SEH filters (as I want to use the same model for CLR filters). In particular, when an outer filter is invoked before entering an inner finally, which piece of IR reflects the filter's side-effects? To take a concrete example, consider this C code: void foo() { int x; __try { x = 0; __try { x = 2; may_throw(); }

(Moving this discussion on list as this could be of general interest.) My current work-in-progress implementation is attempting to map out the blocks used by a landing pad before it starts outlining. It creates a table of catch and cleanup handlers with the block at which each one starts. During outlining I intend to have another mechanism to check to see if we’ve already outlined the handler

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 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

I don’t really have a good enough feeling for the landingpad syntax yet to comment on the most natural way to extend it yet, but creating a synthetic cleanup function to call from the personality function is what I was thinking. With the current (trunk +/- a couple of weeks) clang, compiling for an “x86_64-pc-windows-msvc” target, I’m seeing a landingpad that looks like this: lpad:

> On Nov 18, 2014, at 11:07 AM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com <mailto:bob.wilson at apple.com>> wrote: > >> On Nov 17, 2014, at 5:50 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com <mailto:rnk at google.com>> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Bob

These are exactly the sorts of code transformations we want to allow by delaying the outlining until later. By keeping such code inlined in the parent function until after optimization, we enable a lot of core optimizations like SROA. For example, we should be able to completely eliminate wrappers like unique_ptr that would otherwise stay around due to the pointer escaped to the destructor call

Guys, on second thought... doesn't making the exception registers live from the InvokeInst to the LandingpadInst create problems for critical-edge-splitting ? if a landingpad-edge is critical and needs to be split, won't we be creating and inserting a new BB between the "invoke-block" and the "landingpad-block", and if we do then isn't there the

Thanks for the additional information. Right now I’m experimenting with a mix of code compiled with MSVC and code compiled with clang, trying to get a C++ exception thrown and caught by the MSVC-compiled code across a function in the clang-compiled code. My goal here is to isolate a small part of what needs to be done in a way that lends itself to tinkering. I think this might lead me to the

I am working on adding support for C++ exception handling when compiling for a native Windows target (that is a target with "MSVC" specified as the environment). Because of differences between how the native Windows runtime handles exceptions and the Itanium-based model used by current LLVM exception handling code, I believe this will require some extensions to the LLVM IR, though

(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

I'd like to get a quick feedback on the lifetime.end metadata kind I'm considering using. I'm planning to use it in cases where lifetime.end intrinsics do not give lifetime bounds that are tight enough. As an example of when lifetime.end cannot provide a tight lifetime bound, consider the following program: void test111(int n) { if (n < 10) { string str = "One";

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

On Aug 5, 2011, at 10:57 AM, Peter Lawrence wrote: > However it seems that if a landingpad-block has multiple predecessors (often the case, > multiple InvokeInst in the main body of a try-statement all go to the same landingpad- > block), then you cannot move the LandingpadInst in order to break a critical edge unless > you do it for _all_ landingpad-block predecessor edges

Hello, I am fairly new to RoR and I have a question I hope can be solved elegantly (so many things are, so why not this one too?). I have a working solution, but I want to be sure I am doing things the "rails way" (having come from PHP). You could say I am looking for a little validation (no flames please). I have a table of units like so: CREATE TABLE `units` ( `id`

Duncan Sands wrote: > I would just use the C personality function, __gcc_personality_v0, if > I were you. It should know where to jump to because the code generators > record the invoke unwind target in the dwarf exception handling info in > the object file. > > So I tried what you suggested, and it just gives me a bus error: define i32 @main(i32, i8**) nounwind {