similar to: libunwind is not configured with -funwind-tables when building it for ARM Linux?

Hi Peter, Thanks for your response. > On 18 Nov 2019, at 17:44, Peter Smith <peter.smith at linaro.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 at 12:32, Sergej Jaskiewicz via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> There’s this bug: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38468

> On 18 Nov 2019, at 19:55, Peter Smith <peter.smith at linaro.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 at 15:23, Sergej Jaskiewicz <jaskiewiczs at icloud.com <mailto:jaskiewiczs at icloud.com>> wrote: >> >> Hi Peter, >> >> Thanks for your response. >> >> On 18 Nov 2019, at 17:44, Peter Smith <peter.smith at linaro.org> wrote:

> On 18 Nov 2019, at 22:11, Peter Smith <peter.smith at linaro.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 at 17:06, Sergej Jaskiewicz <jaskiewiczs at icloud.com <mailto:jaskiewiczs at icloud.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 18 Nov 2019, at 19:55, Peter Smith <peter.smith at linaro.org> wrote: >> >> On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 at 15:23, Sergej

I recently debugged an issue where I wasn't getting stack traces from ASAN on 32-bit ARM (on Android) when using a libclang_rt.asan-arm-android.so I'd built myself. I finally ended up tracing it to a build issue; the CMake build check for -funwind-tables was failing (because of some missing link libraries), so compiler-rt wasn't being built with that flag, which in turn led to all

I assume this "CantUnwind table" is not the same as Unwind table index '.ARM.exidx' at offset 0x818 contains 4 entries: 0x5d4 <main>: 0x1 [cantunwind] because the latter prevent any unwinding, breaking debuggers/profilers/sanitizers. As I understand, the right way to enable basic unwind through any function (without emitting landing pands etc, unless they are needed for

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 13 February 2014 11:35, Evgeniy Stepanov <eugenis at google.com> wrote: >> Unwind table index '.ARM.exidx' at offset 0x818 contains 4 entries: >> 0x5d4 <main>: 0x1 [cantunwind] > > This is exactly what I meant. > > >> because the latter prevent any

I'm building LLVM with Clang, LLD, compiler-rt, libunwind, libcxx and libcxxabi. I'm using GCC 7.1.1 and binutils 2.28.0 to build. The compilation is aborted during libunwind build due to gcc not being able to parse libcxx's __config: /usr/bin/cc -DLLVM_BUILD_GLOBAL_ISEL -D_GNU_SOURCE -D__STDC_CONSTANT_MACROS -D__STDC_FORMAT_MACROS -D__STDC_LIMIT_MACROS -Iprojects/libunwind/src

I want to build LLVM-based toolchain with Musl, I have LLVM sources with clang and lld (under `tools` directory) and libunwind, compiler-rt, libcxx and libcxxabi (under `projects` directory). All are the latest versions cloned from GitHub mirror, branch `master`. I'm trying to configure with the following options: CLANG_DEFAULT_CXX_STDLIB = libc++ CLANG_DEFAULT_RTLIB = compiler-rt

On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 8:39 PM Martin Storsjö <martin at martin.st> wrote: > Hi, > > > On Sat, 15 Aug 2020, Ivan Serdyuk wrote: > > > Just as Shoaib said, libunwind only is useful in environments > > that use > > the Itanium C++ ABI - there's really no use for it in an MSVC > > context > > (either using MSVC or

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Jonathan Roelofs < jonathan at codesourcery.com> wrote: > I remember there being a ARM EHABI reason why this won't work, but I don't > remember the specifics. IIRC, had something to do with how c++ rtti is > required > to be handled by the catch handlers, and would mean layering problems if we > moved it. Antoine, do you remember the

On 6 February 2014 19:21, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk> wrote: > > if (nounwind) > can't unwind > can't unwind == unwind table + no EH directives + no EH table if (uwtable || (!nounwind && need uwtable to unwind)) > unwind table > "need unwind table to unwind" is probably true in almost all cases. At least in all where

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

I installed RF on Linux OpenSuSe 11.1 and while it did install and did run a model I had created on Windows correctly, it gave me a lot of "uninitialized" warnings. I don't know if these are significant and so am a little concerned even though my model ran. Any thoughts? Thanks R version 2.10.0 (2009-10-26) Copyright (C) 2009 The R Foundation for Statistical Computing ISBN

Martin, good to hear from you. Thanks for the effort - I will test on 32bit and 64bit Windows 10. I will report ASAP. Ivan On Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 8:42 PM Martin Storsjö <martin at martin.st> wrote: > On Sat, 15 Aug 2020, Ivan Serdyuk wrote: > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 8:39 PM Martin Storsjö <martin at martin.st> wrote: > > Hi, > >

On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 13 February 2014 13:47, Evgeniy Stepanov <eugenis at google.com> wrote: >> Hm, I see that -funwind-tables on arm-linux-androideabi target >> replaces this "cantunwind" with a proper unwind table. >> Hence http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2762. > > If Android is

This may be bogus, but do you have: llvm::JITExceptionHandling = true; for the code that generates the dynamic code? It has been a while, but I don't recall what will happen when dynamic code, generated with jit exception handling turned off, invokes libraries which in turn try to unwind the stack via the libunwind api. However given that you say the code works with 2.8, my concern

Hello, We have been investigating a crash in our application that may be related to how stack frames are generated by the JIT. We observe it with LLVM 2.9, but not with LLVM 2.8, everything else being the same. The crash occurs when dynamically generated code calls code that tries to unwind the stack. Here is what the stack trace looks like on MacOSX 10.6 : 0 libSystem.B.dylib

> > Should the integrated assembler be enabled by default for the Mips? > > Not yet. There's a number of quiet mis-assembly bugs at the moment. The > plan is to switch it on once it's good enough for the Linux kernel and see what > bug reports come back. Having said this, we had our first successful boot of the Linux kernel build with clang and -fintegrated-as today.

I've started the process of bringing LLVM's libunwind into the FreeBSD base system[1]. As part of that process we've tested building the approximately 25,000 third party software packages in the FreeBSD ports collection against a modified FreeBSD with libunwind included[2]. Of course, I wouldn't expect much in the way of build failures -- I'd expect any issues to be largely

On 22 October 2014 19:24, Jonathan Roelofs <jonathan at codesourcery.com> wrote: > I do compiler_rt + libc++abi + libc++ + clang (with a custom ToolChain) testing > of libc++ on bare-metal ARM.... so it is possible. Perhaps you mean to say that > it's not possible to test libunwind on arm-linux when using compiler_rt? Yeah, it's hard and clumsy, not impossible. Basically,