similar to: [LLVMdev] Use of Vectored Exception Handlers for crash recovery

C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 11.0\VC\include\concrt.h(313): warning C4530: C++ exception handler used, but unwind semantics are not enabled. Specify /EHsc (C:\lld-x86_64_win7\lld-x86_64-win7\llvm.src\tools\lld\lib\ReaderWriter\ELF\Hexagon\HexagonLinkingContext.cpp) [C:\lld-x86_64_win7\lld-x86_64-win7\llvm.obj\tools\lld\lib\ReaderWriter\ELF\Hexagon\lldHexagonELFTarget.vcxproj]

On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 8:21 PM, Shankar Easwaran <shankare at codeaurora.org>wrote: > C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio > 11.0\VC\include\concrt.h(313): warning C4530: C++ exception handler used, > but unwind semantics are not enabled. Specify /EHsc > (C:\lld-x86_64_win7\lld-x86_**64-win7\llvm.src\tools\lld\** >

It sounds like this version of libstdc++ doesn't support std::recursive_mutex from C++11. This is really unfortunate, because we were hoping that moving to C++11 would allow us to use standard, portable threading primitives. Does this version of MinGW have any C++11 threading support? Is it just recursive_mutex that is missing, or do we have to avoid std::mutex, std::call_once, etc? lld

OK, sounds like we're screwed. There's two options: 1. Revert and give up on C++11 threading libraries for now. 2. Do what Eric suggests. Move all the mutex usage under #ifdef LLVM_ENABLE_THREADS, and disable LLVM_ENABLE_THREADS by default on MinGW. MinGW plus LLVM_ENABLE_THREADS would become unsupported. Do people have objections to 2? I don't really like it either. On Fri, Jun

Sorry, I mean only disable this for THREADS-WIN32, not threads-posix. On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote: > #2 is better if we can detect threads-win32 vs threads-posix on MinGW, and > only disable this for threads-posix. We can check for > _GLIBCXX_HAS_GTHREADS, but that seems somewhat hackish, so I wonder if > there's a better

+llvmdev. I find this pretty surprising. Actually, we already use std::mutex and std::recursive_mutex in clang, lld, and other llvm projects, it's just a coincidence that it hadn't been introduced into LLVM until my commits. I'm not sure what the right thing to do here is. If I understand correctly, it seems like in order to encounter this, a) you must be using GCC, b) you must be

Hi all, I''ve added some critical section methods to the Windows::Synchronize module in the windows-pr library (in CVS). Looking at the RUBY_CRITICAL macro from rubysig.h, it basically looks like this (in pure Ruby): def RUBY_CRITICAL(&block) critical_section = [0].pack(''L'') InitializeCriticalSection(critical_section)

Hi, I try to work with CELT encoder & decoder in 2 different threads at the same time. So I create/destroy encoder and encode in one thread and create/destroy decoder and decode in other thread. If I didn't protect celt_encoder_create, celt_encode_float and celt_decoder_create, celt_decode_float with CRITICAL_SECTION I get stable error in icwrs32 or ec_byte_write1 (more often) in encoder.

+chandlerc, aaronballman, in case there are additional carryovers and/or issues from the review thread which I've left out. I have a patch up for review[1, 2] that attempts to replace LLVM's mutex implementation with std::mutex and std::recursive_mutex. While the patch seems to work, there are questions surrounding whether or not the approach used is correct. I'll try to summarize

> (PS, if you do use threads, protect speex_jitter_put/get with a mutex > (CRITICAL_SECTION I believe they're called in Win32Speak) -- calling put > and get at the exact same time from different threads leads to "features") I've never tested this, but I designed the jitter buffer to work from two threads even without using a mutex. This would work as long as there is

Thank you for a very good explanation which shed light on some of the questions that I had after reading the source code. Reading your text however, I wonder if I'm perhaps missing an important point on the proper use of the jitter buffer: ... > Now, clearly, if early_ratio is high and late_ratio is very > low, the buffer is buffering more than it needs to; it will > skip a frame

You actually can mix 32 and 64 bit code in the same Windows process, but only with great effort. Fixing PR24233 is probably easier. :) We know how to generate the info, but we still have to get it registered... On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Lang Hames via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi Dibyendu, > > I'm not familiar with Windows at all, but I assume you

Hi all! I have been experimenting with alternative virtio ring layouts, in order to speed up single stream performance. I have just posted a benchmark I wrote for the purpose, and a (partial) alternative layout implementation. This achieves 20-40% reduction in virtio overhead in the (default) polling mode. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.virtualization/26889 The layout is trying to

Hi all! I have been experimenting with alternative virtio ring layouts, in order to speed up single stream performance. I have just posted a benchmark I wrote for the purpose, and a (partial) alternative layout implementation. This achieves 20-40% reduction in virtio overhead in the (default) polling mode. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.virtualization/26889 The layout is trying to

Hi Björn To first answer your questionin the subject: For x86 registerEHFrames() is only a stub. For x86_64 registerEHFrames() is implemented properly in RuntimeDyldCOFFX86_64, calling MemMgr.registerEHFrames() for each EH frame section. It should be called and work out of the box without your involvement, but unfortunately it won't solve your issue. All the essential information is there in

Folks, the packets I want to place in an ogg stream are concatenations of two hunks of memory. Rather than memcopy() them into one then pass them to libogg, I patched framing.c to accept iovecs. The unified diff is 80 lines, minus the OS-specific stuff for defining struct ogg_iovec_t - pretty trivial. Is there any interest in it? Or is libogg frozen while all efforts are concentrated on

The second argumentto generic_file_write_nolock is an iovec, not an actual userbuffer. The current code doesn't even have the slightest chance to work. Maybe it's time to decouple the 2.6 read/write code from the 2.4 code and implement proper vectored operations everywhere? (and kill tge O_DIRECT vs O_APPEN hack, and the broken fallback code, and..)

By default, calls to abort() in the MS CRT do not trigger an exception and forcefully terminate the process, making CrashRecoveryContext not very useful on Windows for catching abort(), and consequently, assert(). One solution is to create a custom abort() handler that calls RaiseException(), which will be caught by the handler in CrashRecoveryContext. The relevant client-side code is: void

> I tried loading the "msvcrt.lib" as a archive. That was... a bad idea! > I get a Exception while loading: > Assertion failed: ((int64_t)Result <= INT32_MAX) && "Relocation > overflow", file > \lib\executionengine\runtimedyld\Targets/RuntimeDyldCOFFX86_64.h, line 81 It's a limitation of the COFF/PE format and unrelated to exceptions. This patch

Good Day, dear wine users :) . I am the developer of program, which must work under Wine and Windows. it has two threads, and these threads use one function to add text to Rich text box. When they try to add texts in parallel, a mixed text appear. So I decided to use critical section. When main thread tries to add text, the text adds perfectly, but when the second thread tries to add text - it