similar to: [LLVMdev] [WinEH] A hiccup for the Windows C++ exception handling

Have got anything started with the dispatchblock plan? From: Reid Kleckner [mailto:rnk at google.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 1:15 PM To: Kaylor, Andrew Cc: David Majnemer <david.majnemer at gmail.com> (david.majnemer at gmail.com); LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [WinEH] A hiccup for the Windows C++ exception handling On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Kaylor, Andrew

I made some progress this afternoon. I now have a set of changes in my local sandbox that allows clang to pass all of the tests in the suite I’ve been using to exercise this code. How do you feel about working these changes into trunk to establish a working baseline, even knowing that parts of this are going to be redesigned? -Andy From: Reid Kleckner [mailto:rnk at google.com] Sent:

Hi Reid and David, I just wanted to give you a heads up that I'm currently working on a problem where the WinEHPrepare outlining code stumbles and asserts while cloning code that references extracted landing pad values via PHI nodes that are in intermediate blocks that aren't being cloned. The test I'm looking at fails with an assertion claiming that llvm.eh.begincatch was called

Just as an off-the-cuff idea that I haven’t thought through at all, what would you think of the possibility of replacing this: %12 = call i32 @llvm.eh.typeid.for(i8* bitcast (%eh.CatchHandlerType* @llvm.eh.handlertype.H.0 to i8*)) %matches7 = icmp eq i32 %sel6, %12 with this: %matches7 = call i32 @llvm.eh.cmp.selector(i32 %sel6, i8* bitcast (%eh.CatchHandlerType* @llvm.eh.handlertype.H.0

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com> wrote: > What follows is primarily addressed to Reid and David, but since it some > of it is relevant to the Windows exception handling proposal under > discussion, I thought I should copy the LLVMDev distribution list. Anyone > interested should feel free to jump in and discuss. > > > >

I've been looking at compilation time issues in the LICM pass, and it looks to me like colorEHFunclets() is probably being called a lot more often than it needs to be for functions that have Windows EH personality functions. For one thing, the funclet coloring is happening when computeLoopSafetyInfo() is called from LoopIdiomRecognize and LoopUnswitch but those passes don't use the

What follows is primarily addressed to Reid and David, but since it some of it is relevant to the Windows exception handling proposal under discussion, I thought I should copy the LLVMDev distribution list. Anyone interested should feel free to jump in and discuss. My primary purpose here is to talk about what I'm working on so that anyone who is also working on the same things can let me

Hi, Have any decisions been made on where to put executable WinEH tests? Wherever they go, would it be helpful if I were to add some C++EH and/or SEH tests pulled from MSVC's test suite, since compatibility is the goal here? Thanks -Joseph From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Reid Kleckner Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2015 5:56 PM To: Kaylor,

I think we should make a new svn repository for these. test-suite is the logical place, but it's way too bloated and has too much Unix specific baggage. I'd really like to have something that just uses lit, can be checked out into projects, and can be run as part of check-all, like the compiler-rt execution test suite. My suggestion is to call it 'execution-tests', and we can

I think adding transitions to cleanupblocks on the normal execution path would be an optimization barrier. Most passes would see the cleanupblock instruction and run the other way. It's definitely appealing from the perspective of getting the smallest possible code, but I'm OK with having no more than two copies of everything in the finally block. I think with the addition of the

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Joseph Tremoulet <jotrem at microsoft.com> wrote: > Hi, > > > > Thanks for sending this out. We're looking forward to seeing this come > about, since we need funclet separation for LLILC as well (and I have > cycles to spend on it, if that would be helpful). > > > > Some questions about the new proposal: > > >

On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Joseph Tremoulet <jotrem at microsoft.com> wrote: > > I want to have separate normal and exceptional codepaths > > I assume you at least mean that's what you'll be doing in Clang's initial > IR generation. Do you also mean to impose this as a restriction on other > IR generators, and as a property that IR transformations must

This example is pretty compelling, but I still think I want to limit the scope of this change to not include this feature. It's probably reasonable to hold onto the idea as future work, though. In the meantime, frontends can decide for themselves whether they want code size or stronger optimization of cleanups by doing early outlining or not. The only way we can hit the quadratic growth from

Hi all, I brought this up last week in an LLVMDev discussion of C++ EH support on Windows, but I thought I should float it again with a subject that would be less likely to be missed by people who don't have a direct interest in Windows support. I would like to introduce two new intrinsics, llvm.eh.begincatch and llvm.eh.endcatch, to take the place of __cxa_begin_catch and __cxa_end_catch in

On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 12:36 AM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote: > > On Mar 3, 2015, at 2:25 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > > > > I realized that WinEH preparation can probably be a lot less invasive > than it is currently. > > > > Initially, when I was thinking about recovering the address of an object > in a parent stack

Yes, it seems like WinEHPrepare should always be able to move landing pad code to somewhere appropriate. Even if there's some involved code to handle the cases that force #1, it's great that the complexity is contained in WinEHPrepare. I'm still confused about the apparent lack of constraints after WinEHPrepare. Can we simply require/assume that WinEHPrepare be run after any passes

Hi Reid, It occurs to me that we should probably move the cppeh outlining tests, since they aren't actually X86-specific. We should probably also add an ARM+Windows run line to them. I'm torn between whether they should go in the test/CodeGen/CPP folder or in a new test/CodeGen/Win (or test/CodeGen/WinEH) folder. Thoughts? -Andy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML

After a long tale of sorrow and woe, my colleagues and I stand here before you defeated. The Itanium EH representation is not amenable to implementing MSVC-compatible exceptions. We need a new representation that preserves information about how try-catch blocks are nested. WinEH background ------------------------------- Skip this if you already know a lot about Windows exceptions. On Windows,

Here's a very odd question - I don't know if anybody can even begin to answer. I am attempting something very odd and geeky. I set up an icecast Win32 server streaming a 96kbps mp3 stream (using all the latest as of today software, winamp, icecast2 and oddcast v3) so I can listen to it on my cell phone while at work. My phone does GPRS EDGE data at 131kbps-ish, just barely fast enough to

> On Feb 2, 2015, at 4:53 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > This seems reasonable to me. Adding John explicitly… Thanks, Reid. Andy, I understand why Windows EH needs custom lowering here, and using intrinsics seems like a fine approach, but I don’t understand why you’re proposing changing the Itanium code generation pattern. There’s no reason for backends to have