similar to: [LLVMdev] unwind's permanent residence

On 30 January 2015 at 20:43, Jonathan Roelofs <jonathan at codesourcery.com> wrote: > I think this dependence should be satisfied by the target system's unwinder, > whatever that is. If folks want to use this libunwind for their platform, > that's fine... but we should probably continue to use libgcc_s and libgcc_eh > on linux when that's the platform's unwinder.

On 1/30/15 1:17 PM, Saleem Abdulrasool wrote: > Although this has been discussed in the past, I think that given a few > conversations, it seems that it unfortunately needs to be brought up again. > > There seems to be some disagreement over the ideal location of the > unwinder (libunwind). Currently, libunwind resides in a subdirectory of > libc++abi. There seems to be some

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Dan Albert <danalbert at google.com> wrote: > >> Shouldn't it just use the default unwinder for the given platform? >> > > Sure, but what is the default unwinder for a given platform? > > Lets go with Linux. I have two different

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Dan Albert <danalbert at google.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org > > wrote: > >> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Dan Albert <danalbert at google.com> wrote: >> >>> Shouldn't it just use the default unwinder for the given platform? >>> >>

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

On 30 Jan 2015 21:24, "Saleem Abdulrasool" <compnerd at compnerd.org> wrote: > The library is agnostic of the unwinder, the driver is who cares (as it needs to generate the linker invocation). I think that adding a flag to control that similar to -rtlib is probably what we may have to do then. What about the default unwinder for Compiler-RT? Should we assume our own?

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 30 January 2015 at 20:43, Jonathan Roelofs <jonathan at codesourcery.com> > wrote: > > I think this dependence should be satisfied by the target system's > unwinder, > > whatever that is. If folks want to use this libunwind for their platform, > > that's fine...

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 22 April 2015 at 03:40, Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org> wrote: >> So after a bit of a hiatus (sorry, other stuff has been eating up my free >> time), Id like to pick this up again. I think that its a matter of just >> copying the unwind sources into the right

On 30 January 2015 at 20:17, Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org> wrote: > There is a valid point that the > unwinder supports the compiler in some sense (for exception handling). It > seems that its not particularly as intrinsically tied to the compiler as the > builtins are. Unwinding is not just used for EH, but also debugging, profiling, sanitizers (when in

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > 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. > +1 to this. If you don't break the EHABI unwinder while moving things around, I'm happy. +Dan,

Talked it over with Saleem on IRC, and I've come around to thinking libunwind is a better default for --rtlib=compiler-rt. Reason being that --rtlib=compiler-rt means libgcc probably isn't even available. On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 5:30 PM, Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Dan Albert <danalbert at google.com> wrote: >

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> > wrote: > >> What about the default unwinder for Compiler-RT? Should we assume our >> own? Gcc's? Assuming nothing will break compilation, since the libraries >> won't be available...

On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 4:07 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 30 January 2015 at 20:43, Jonathan Roelofs <jonathan at codesourcery.com> > wrote: > > Last time we brought this up, there was only partial consensus, and then > > someone arbitrarily declared total consensus (without compelling > arguments > > in any particular direction)

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 30 Jan 2015 21:24, "Saleem Abdulrasool" <compnerd at compnerd.org> wrote: > > The library is agnostic of the unwinder, the driver is who cares (as it > needs to generate the linker invocation). I think that adding a flag to > control that similar to -rtlib is probably what

On 31 Jan 2015, at 03:02, Dan Albert <danalbert at google.com> wrote: > Talked it over with Saleem on IRC, and I've come around to thinking libunwind is a better default for --rtlib=compiler-rt. Reason being that --rtlib=compiler-rt means libgcc probably isn't even available. It's not just that, it's about making it self-contained. In a system with both gcc and llvm

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 16 February 2015 at 14:24, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > > I’m OK with this. > > Thanks Marshall. > > Saleem, we need to create a new repository, copy the Unwind source > tree in there, and get CMake to work. I'm not experienced enough with > CMake

On Jan 30, 2015, at 12:43 PM, Jonathan Roelofs <jonathan at codesourcery.com> wrote: > It would be nice if we had some libunwind-specific tests too. Currently we have none, other than the c++ abi tests. Nick, does Apple have any they're willing to upstream? Here is what Apple has: http://opensource.apple.com/source/libunwind/libunwind-35.3/testsuite/ If you think these are

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Dan Albert <danalbert at google.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org > > wrote: > >> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> >> wrote: >> >>> What about the default unwinder for Compiler-RT? Should we assume our

So, I remember we discussed this earlier this year, but I can't find the thread. The idea is to move libunwind into compiler-rt for the simple reasons below: 1. Unwinding is not exclusive to C++, nor exception handling. 2. Clang still includes libgcc_s and libgcc_eh when using compiler-rt (maybe eh isn't needed, but it was there for libgcc). 3. Testing the libunwind with libc++ on ARM is

On 31 Jan 2015, at 03:02, Dan Albert <danalbert at google.com> wrote: > > Talked it over with Saleem on IRC, and I've come around to thinking libunwind is a better default for --rtlib=compiler-rt. Reason being that --rtlib=compiler-rt means libgcc probably isn't even available. On FreeBSD, we install compiler-rt as libgcc (or, at least, symlink it to libgcc). This means that