similar to: [LLVMdev] MCJIT longjmp failure on Win64 - was Invalid or unaligned stack exception on Windows

Are you using split stacks of some kind? Are you sure these actually work as intended on Win64? Based on the source code, it looks like you are allocating stack manually, but I could be wrong. What triple are you using with LLVM to generate code? There isn't much else information here, but you can try to zero in on the problem by checking the stack alignment manually with a helper like: void

I'm trying to make sense in the support for setjmp/longjmp in Clang and LLVM, with only partial success. I'll try to summarize my findings in the hope that someone can shed some light on why things are the way they are and what I'm missing. Clang. Clang recognizes two forms of setjmp (all I say here applies to longjmp similarly): * __builtin_setjmp: gets lowered to calling the

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 03:55:53PM -0700, Jim Grosbach wrote: > The builtins are for internal compiler use in the context of SjLj > exception handling. Any other use, including any direct calls of the > builtins in user code, are a bad idea with no guaranteed behaviour. > That they're exposed at all is, again, for historical purposes. Don't use them. Why is longjmp converted

Hi, In our (non-C) compiler we use setjmp/longjmp to implement exception handling. For the initial implementation LLVM backend, I'm keeping that model. In order to ensure that changes performed in a try/setjmp==0 block survive the longjmp, the changes must be done via volatile operations. Given that volatility is a property of individual load/store instructions rather than of memory slots in

On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 02:23:01PM +0100, Jonas Maebe via llvm-dev wrote: > Recap: we use setjmp/longjmp for our exception handling on all platforms in > our regular (non-LLVM) code generators. I'd like to use the same > infrastructure with the LLVM code generator for code interoperability > purposes (the LLVM SjLj personality is not binary-compatible with our > existing

On 30/09/16 20:10, Reid Kleckner wrote: > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 4:42 AM, Jonas Maebe <jonas-devlists at watlock.be > <mailto:jonas-devlists at watlock.be>> wrote: > > So, can I use invoke and landingpad without using any of the other > exception handling intrinsics? (in combination with a dummy personality > function) Or will LLVM in all cases insist on

Dear list, I want to add SJLJ exception handling to my frontend. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any examples in the documentation as to how to use the intrinsics @llvm.eh.sjlj.setjmp @llvm.eh.sjlj.longjmp @llvm.eh.sjlj.lsda @llvm.eh.sjlj.callsite Is there a way to force Clang to use SJLJ exception handling for C++? That way I would be able to look at its output to learn how to use

Okay. I understand builtin functions do not have to behave exactly the same way as standard library functions. What I wanted to know is what should the code generated by llvm (clang + llc) look like (I am working on the Mips back-end now). I guess there should be a behavior users expect to see who are using __builtin_setjmp/longjmp even they aren't the same as library functions. If the code

The builtins are for internal compiler use in the context of SjLj exception handling. Any other use, including any direct calls of the builtins in user code, are a bad idea with no guaranteed behaviour. That they're exposed at all is, again, for historical purposes. Don't use them. -Jim On Apr 27, 2011, at 3:45 PM, Akira Hatanaka wrote: > Okay. I understand builtin functions do not

On Apr 27, 2011, at 4:08 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 03:55:53PM -0700, Jim Grosbach wrote: >> The builtins are for internal compiler use in the context of SjLj >> exception handling. Any other use, including any direct calls of the >> builtins in user code, are a bad idea with no guaranteed behaviour. >> That they're exposed at all is,

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 4:42 AM, Jonas Maebe <jonas-devlists at watlock.be> wrote: > Reid Kleckner wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Jonas Maebe via llvm-dev > > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > > > > model. In order to ensure that changes performed in a try/setjmp==0 > > block survive

Do the LLVM Setjmp/Longjmp intrinsics interact with C++ exception handling and execute C++ cleanup actions? I compiled a small example using setjmp/longjmp using clang and they did not execute C++ cleanup actions and calling longjmp bypassed calling destructors on objects that were allocated between the call to setjmp and longjmp. I’m wondering if the LLVM intrinsics behave differently from

Okay. Are you saying that you shouldn't use __builtin functions in general in your program or just __builtin_setjmp/longjmp? Also, are there any warnings issued by either clang or llvm if they are used in your program? On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: > The builtins are for internal compiler use in the context of SjLj exception >

Hi In llvm src the file llvm/lib/Transforms/IPO/LowerSetJmp.cpp, it seems for sjlj-eh ? but this pass has no effect about c++ sjlj-eh. this pass is for future extend? zhangzw

On 6 March 2014 18:09, Mark Seaborn <mseaborn at chromium.org> wrote: > LowerAtomic "lowers atomic intrinsics to non-atomic form for use in a > known non-preemptible environment". LowerInvoke strips out exception > handling by converting invokes to calls, so that landingpads, resumes, etc. > become dead and can be removed by a later pass. > > (As an aside,

Hi, I have some code which has sigsetjmp / longjmp. After a longjmp, unreachable is inserted, which is fine. The problem is that in the backend before calling longjmp, some register was spilled to a stack location which is live across the jmp. I mean, it will be live after jumping. The stack location was initialized before the call to setjmp, and is used afterwards. Is there any bug in handling

hi, I'm doing to make llvm backend support sjlj-eh! I have try to use the llvm-IR to generate the sjlj-eh code, but I'm totally despair ! my major problem is that llvm-ir , I mean exception instrinstics are enough for codegen the sjlj-eh code? May I need to modify the llvm-gcc ? or someone can give some advice about llvm-backend 's support sjlj-eh ? best regards

On Oct 4, 2011, at 3:53 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Khaled ElWazeer > <khalid.alwazeer at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I have some code which has sigsetjmp / longjmp. After a longjmp, unreachable >> is inserted, which is fine. The problem is that in the backend before >> calling longjmp, some register was spilled to a

Hi, I would like to build an x86 executable consisting of a number of subsystems (mostly legacy C code). One subsystem will be compiled to native code using llvm. It calls, and is called by, the other subsystems, many of which have to be compiled using gcc because they use small amounts of inline assembly. All of the subsystems catch and throw errors to one another using setjmp/longjmp. When

[klibc] [PATCH] fix ARM longjmp with zero 'val'. We need to set the condition codes on the ARM. The previous version was using a left over condition code from the caller. Also, use conditional execution to eliminate branch and reduce size. Signed-off-by: Bill Pringlemeir <bpringle at sympatico.ca> diff --git a/usr/klibc/arch/arm/setjmp.S b/usr/klibc/arch/arm/setjmp.S index