similar to: [LLVMdev] Looking for advice on how to debug a problem with C++ style exception handling code that my compiler generates.

Hi Christian, Andy's already covered the major points, but you could consider filing a bug at http://llvm.org/bugs too, especially if you've got a small test-case that demonstrates the issue. Exception handling hasn't been a priority in the past, but as more people adopt LLVM's JIT APIs I suspect it will get more attention, and bug reports will help us figure out what needs doing.

Hi Christian, > I don’t see anything in the Itanium ABI that says I need to call the function that throws an exception with “invoke” to get exception handling to work! AFAICT, it is the design of LLVM IR and its implementation. To catch the exceptions thrown by the callee functions, we should use the invoke instruction along with the landingpad instruction. If you are calling a function

Hi Christian, Thanks for your explanation. I know your situation now. I would suggest you to check the optimization pass used by the JIT compiler, especially IPO/PruneEH.cpp. It will try to add nounwind attribute to functions which will result in the problem you have mentioned earlier. Alternatively, as a workaround, try to add uwtable (function attribute) to the functions that are generated

Logan, I need to make a correction of the post that preceded this one! I was wrong when I said this: > When I load the bitcode file for this module and then dump it just before it is JITted, the “uwtable” attribute has disappeared - is this prune-eh doing its work even though it’s not listed above in the list of function pass managers? The “uwtable” attribute does not disappear! I had

This is the only thing that I’ve found that works in terms of getting the exception to propagate out of the JITted function - change the “call” to an “invoke” and hook in the do-nothing landing-pad. https://gist.github.com/drmeister/7a35046f666826206973 Compare line 646 of the file above to the one that I just posted. > https://gist.github.com/drmeister/b97dec956c6ee9ffeb75 The first one

Logan, How would I dump the object file generated by the JIT compiler pipeline? Could you point me to an example of how something like that is done? I’m used to working with the JIT machinery in memory but not writing object files out to disk. I’m have code to generate object files for AOT compilation - is it done the same way? Best, .Chris. On Apr 12, 2015, at 2:27 PM, Logan Chien

I switched my Common Lisp compiler to use MCJIT on the weekend and ran into a weird problem compiling one particular function. It crashes with an EXC_BAD_ACCESS error in MCJIT::finalizeObject when calling processFDE. The weird part is that the function does not appear to do anything special and I've whittled it down to the minimum size that still causes the crash. If I remove even one

Hi Christian, Thanks for sharing this. Yaron Keren has been investigating some problems in the EH frame registration code recently, and I think this may be related. It at least sounds similar to the type of variations in behavior based on code size that Yaron was seeing. -Andy -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of

Hi, I had similar problems with EH in ELF in RTDyldMemoryManager::registerEHFrames() calling __register_frame(). I'm not sure these problems are related to this problem since your crash happens in RuntimeDyldMachO::registerEHFrames() in its own processFDE (there are two functions named processFDE(), one in RuntimeDyldMachO.cpp and one in RTDyldMemoryManager.cpp) *before*

> 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

Hello Stefan, I'm happy someone replied to my problem! Many thanks! To be honest... I didn't understood much of your mail. I'm a beginner with the JIT - so I will explain what I've done. To manage the memory and resolve symbols, I'm using my own Resolver-Class, which overloads the allocation and the findSymbol functions. I've noticed today, that the

Hi Bjoern, I'm trying to make exceptions run. I have an Object file with a function, > throwing a 1 and a second function which should catch the 1. Normal JITTING > under Windows showed me, that I have an unresolved reference to the virtual > table of type_info. Some experiments later I was able to load "msvcrt.lib" > as an archive and could resolve the reference. Nice -

I'm catching up on this. Does this mean LLVM x64 JITTed code is not exception friendly or you can't catch exceptions inside LLVM JITTed code. The first one seems to indicate that the code is not ABI friendly or that not enough information is present to notify Windows of unwind tables. I'll ask the question another way: Does LLVM emit enough information so that RtlAddFunctionTable can

Yes, I’m handling all internal and external relocations manually in NotifyLoadedFtor and I already verified that I get the behavior I need if I comment out the call to resolveRelocations. I would like to reuse ObjectLinkingLayer::addObjectSet (which eventually calls RuntimeDyld::loadObject), which has the right calls to the memory manager and also RuntimeDyld::registerEHFrames. I understand that

That's encouraging. Assuming that all access to the JITted code is going to be done through a function pointer, and all JIT code is ephemeral, why is the object container format important? In fact, why is it even needed? I found it somewhat odd that MCJIT generates an object file for even the JIT case. To answer my own question, could it be that advanced JIT's may need/want to use things

Hi, I think I need to make a small change to the MCJit interface, and would like some feedback on what the most appropriate option would be. I'm working on LLILC (a jit for the CoreCLR built on MCJit, which creates one module for each MSIL method, containing the main function and zero or more EH handler functions extracted from the MSIL method). The CoreCLR requires the jit to notify it of

Agreed, that sounds like the best plan. I'll look into moving LLILC to ORC. Thanks -Joseph From: Russell Hadley Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 8:13 PM To: Lang Hames; Joseph Tremoulet Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: RE: [LLVMdev] MCJit interface question Hey Joseph, What Lang said made me wonder. Is it the right time for us (LLILC) to move to ORC? The long term plan was to go there but

Hello friendly LLVM-World, because I don't know if I had send my problem to the correct Mailing-List, I will send my problem to this address too. I'm not subscribed to this list, so please add my in CC if you response. Kind regards Björn From: Bjoern Gaier/HE/HORIBA To: Clang Dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "cfe-dev" <cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>

Hi Eugene, Sorry for the delayed reply. Custom relocations weren't something I had in mind when I designed Orc, so they raise some interesting design questions which I don't have good answers to yet. (E.g. The interface for the Orc layer concept assumes that there's a RuntimeDyld instance embedded at the bottom of the stack. That's why addModuleSet takes a MemoryManager and

Hey Joseph, What Lang said made me wonder. Is it the right time for us (LLILC) to move to ORC? The long term plan was to go there but this could be our forcing function. -R From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Lang Hames Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 2:23 PM To: Joseph Tremoulet Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] MCJit interface