similar to: Running R under Mosix

Barry, Would you mind providing the necessary patch for this behavior? Thanks, Greg > -----Original Message----- > From: Barry Rowlingson [mailto:B.Rowlingson@lancaster.ac.uk] > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 8:04 AM > To: r-devel@stat.math.ethz.ch > Subject: Re: longjmp - was: seemingly random "nesting of > readline input" > warnings > > > Luke

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

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

That code should do it, but I realized you only detect setjmp functions by name. My code is calling "__sigsetjmp" not "segsetjmp". You only support these functions: static const char *ReturnsTwiceFns[] = { "_setjmp", "setjmp", "sigsetjmp", "setjmp_syscall", "savectx", "qsetjmp",

Hello, Jay. > the resulting bitcode doesn't use LLVM's exception handling > intrinsics, it just has a call to a function called "_setjmp". And > there doesn't seem to be any provision for returning the current value > of the volatile variable v if setjmp returns non-zero - the bitcode > always returns zero, whereas the spec for setjmp() says that f() >

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

hello vorlon, got notified of your patch, will apply next days upstream unless some critiques are voiced on ml. thanks. -- maks ----- Forwarded message from Steve Langasek <steve.langasek at canonical.com> ----- Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 22:05:42 -0000 From: Steve Langasek <steve.langasek at canonical.com> Subject: [Bug 527720] Re: thumb2 porting issues identified: klibc uses

[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

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

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

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 stack location which is live > across the jmp. I mean, it will be live after

Hi Anton, > > I would expect llvm-gcc to use LLVM's setjmp/longjmp intrinsics and > > then to run the LowerSetJmp pass to turn the intrinsic calls into uses > > of invoke and unwind. At that point, the control flow is explicit, > > isn't it? > Unfortunately, no. You can call setjmp/longjmp on the same jump buffer > multiple times. So, in general it's not

Commit-ID: d7d16afbdae9bdea83aeb26ac572e6fc4d7d4940 Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/?p=libs/klibc/klibc.git;a=commit;h=d7d16afbdae9bdea83aeb26ac572e6fc4d7d4940 Author: Steve McIntyre <steve at einval.com> AuthorDate: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 18:13:34 +0100 Committer: maximilian attems <max at stro.at> CommitDate: Sun, 1 Jul 2012 22:51:00 +0200 [klibc] arm/setjmp.S: fix longjmp

Hi all !!! I have got a MOSIX-Cluster and wanted to upgrade to ext3-fs, but that didn't work out. The ext3-fs patch FAILED to patch the MOSIX-kernel and if I tried to apply the ext3- patch before, the MOSIX-patch failed. Can someone help me with that ? Perhaps someone knows of a conclusion for that problem or can tell me where to get a MOSIX-patch for 2.4.15. I would be glad to hear from

Hi,I'm trying to prevent llvm instruction motion around an intrinsic function call. Throughout my experimenting, I was told that setjmp could create fake entry points into a region of code and that might prevent code motion.What I found is something surprising, and probably is a misuse of setjmp but I couldn't find an explanation for it.Consider this:#include <csetjmp> std::jmp_buf

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

It seems straightforward to implement, if it just needs to be functionally correct. I have another question about setjmp/longjmp. When the following program is compiled and run with argument 10 (./a.out 10), should it print 10 or 23? I am asking this question because it prints 23 when compiled with gcc and prints 10 when compiled with clang. If it is supposed to return 23, it seems to me that

I'm trying to get unwind to work. I was unable to get an unwind example to work directly, so I decided to compile a c program that uses setjmp and longjmp and work backwards. I keep running into a "Abort trap" problem, whatever "Abort trap" is. Anyway, here's an example of a C program that compiles and works properly under normal gcc, but that fails with an

Hi zhangzw, > In llvm src the file llvm/lib/Transforms/IPO/LowerSetJmp.cpp, it > seems for sjlj-eh ? it's not for sjlj-eh. The problem with setjmp/longjmp is that they can jump from one part of a function to any other part, which means that the control-flow graph is pointless; this makes everything more complicated. So how to deal with this? LLVM does have constructs that allow

On 11/03/2017 07:57 PM, Yichao Yu wrote: > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 8:54 PM, Alexandre Isoard via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: >>> On 11/03/2017 07:20 PM, Alexandre Isoard via llvm-dev wrote: >>> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I am not sure about the