RPCS3/llvm-mirror
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/RPCS3/llvm-mirror.git synced 2024-11-23 19:23:23 +01:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Wiki Activity
1595f1e4ce
llvm-mirror/test/CodeGen/X86/seh-catchpad.ll

196 lines
7.8 KiB
LLVM
Raw Normal View History

[WinEH] Emit __C_specific_handler tables for the new IR We emit denormalized tables, where every range of invokes in the same state gets a complete list of EH action entries. This is significantly simpler than trying to infer the correct nested scoping structure from the MI. Fortunately, for SEH, the nesting structure is really just a size optimization. With this, some basic __try / __except examples work. llvm-svn: 249078
2015-10-01 23:38:24 +02:00
; RUN: llc < %s | FileCheck %s
; Based on the source:
; extern "C" int puts(const char *);
; extern "C" int printf(const char *, ...);
; extern "C" int do_div(int a, int b) { return a / b; }
; extern "C" int filt();
; int main() {
; __try {
; __try {
; do_div(1, 0);
; } __except (1) {
; __try {
; do_div(1, 0);
; } __finally {
; puts("finally");
; }
; }
; } __except (filt()) {
; puts("caught");
; }
; return 0;
; }
; ModuleID = 't.cpp'
target datalayout = "e-m:w-i64:64-f80:128-n8:16:32:64-S128"
target triple = "x86_64-pc-windows-msvc"
$"\01??_C@_07MKBLAIAL@finally?$AA@" = comdat any
$"\01??_C@_06IBDBCMGJ@caught?$AA@" = comdat any
@"\01??_C@_07MKBLAIAL@finally?$AA@" = linkonce_odr unnamed_addr constant [8 x i8] c"finally\00", comdat, align 1
@"\01??_C@_06IBDBCMGJ@caught?$AA@" = linkonce_odr unnamed_addr constant [7 x i8] c"caught\00", comdat, align 1
; Function Attrs: nounwind readnone
define i32 @do_div(i32 %a, i32 %b) #0 {
entry:
%div = sdiv i32 %a, %b
ret i32 %div
}
define i32 @main() #1 personality i8* bitcast (i32 (...)* @__C_specific_handler to i8*) {
entry:
%call = invoke i32 @do_div(i32 1, i32 0) #4
to label %__try.cont.12 unwind label %catch.dispatch
__except.2: ; preds = %__except
%call4 = invoke i32 @do_div(i32 1, i32 0) #4
to label %invoke.cont.3 unwind label %ehcleanup
invoke.cont.3: ; preds = %__except.2
invoke fastcc void @"\01?fin$0@0@main@@"() #4
to label %__try.cont.12 unwind label %catch.dispatch.7
__except.9: ; preds = %__except.ret
%call11 = tail call i32 @puts(i8* nonnull getelementptr inbounds ([7 x i8], [7 x i8]* @"\01??_C@_06IBDBCMGJ@caught?$AA@", i64 0, i64 0))
br label %__try.cont.12
__try.cont.12: ; preds = %invoke.cont.3, %entry, %__except.9
ret i32 0
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies: - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM experts. - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes. This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation. - catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward. It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other funclets. - The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a representation which forbade them upfront. Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following: - Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable. - Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model the constraints of funclet oriented EH. - Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume the token produced by the funclet which contains them. - Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred implicitly using coloring information. N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a look to make sure the results are reasonable. Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139 llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 06:38:55 +01:00
catch.dispatch: ; preds = %entry
%cs1 = catchswitch within none [label %__except] unwind label %catch.dispatch.7
__except: ; preds = %catch.dispatch
%cp1 = catchpad within %cs1 [i8* null]
catchret from %cp1 to label %__except.2
[WinEH] Emit __C_specific_handler tables for the new IR We emit denormalized tables, where every range of invokes in the same state gets a complete list of EH action entries. This is significantly simpler than trying to infer the correct nested scoping structure from the MI. Fortunately, for SEH, the nesting structure is really just a size optimization. With this, some basic __try / __except examples work. llvm-svn: 249078
2015-10-01 23:38:24 +02:00
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies: - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM experts. - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes. This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation. - catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward. It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other funclets. - The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a representation which forbade them upfront. Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following: - Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable. - Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model the constraints of funclet oriented EH. - Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume the token produced by the funclet which contains them. - Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred implicitly using coloring information. N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a look to make sure the results are reasonable. Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139 llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 06:38:55 +01:00
ehcleanup: ; preds = %__except.2
%cp2 = cleanuppad within none []
[WinEH] Use operand bundles to describe call sites SimplifyCFG allows tail merging with code which terminates in unreachable which, in turn, makes it possible for an invoke to end up in a funclet which it was not originally part of. Using operand bundles on invokes allows us to determine whether or not an invoke was part of a funclet in the source program. Furthermore, it allows us to unambiguously answer questions about the legality of inlining into call sites which the personality may have trouble with. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15517 llvm-svn: 255674
2015-12-15 22:27:27 +01:00
invoke fastcc void @"\01?fin$0@0@main@@"() #4 [ "funclet"(token %cp2) ]
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies: - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM experts. - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes. This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation. - catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward. It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other funclets. - The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a representation which forbade them upfront. Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following: - Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable. - Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model the constraints of funclet oriented EH. - Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume the token produced by the funclet which contains them. - Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred implicitly using coloring information. N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a look to make sure the results are reasonable. Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139 llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 06:38:55 +01:00
to label %invoke.cont.6 unwind label %catch.dispatch.7
invoke.cont.6: ; preds = %ehcleanup
cleanupret from %cp2 unwind label %catch.dispatch.7
catch.dispatch.7:
%cs2 = catchswitch within none [label %__except.ret] unwind to caller
__except.ret: ; preds = %catch.dispatch.7
%cp3 = catchpad within %cs2 [i8* bitcast (i32 (i8*, i8*)* @"\01?filt$0@0@main@@" to i8*)]
catchret from %cp3 to label %__except.9
[WinEH] Emit __C_specific_handler tables for the new IR We emit denormalized tables, where every range of invokes in the same state gets a complete list of EH action entries. This is significantly simpler than trying to infer the correct nested scoping structure from the MI. Fortunately, for SEH, the nesting structure is really just a size optimization. With this, some basic __try / __except examples work. llvm-svn: 249078
2015-10-01 23:38:24 +02:00
}
; CHECK: main: # @main
; CHECK: .seh_proc main
; CHECK: .seh_handler __C_specific_handler, @unwind, @except
; CHECK: pushq %rbp
; CHECK: .seh_pushreg 5
[WinEH] Only generate UnwindHelp slot for MSVCXX Summary: Other personalities don't use this special frame slot. Reviewers: majnemer, andrew.w.kaylor, rnk Subscribers: llvm-commits Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D14580 llvm-svn: 252778
2015-11-11 20:21:09 +01:00
; CHECK: subq $32, %rsp
; CHECK: .seh_stackalloc 32
; CHECK: leaq 32(%rsp), %rbp
; CHECK: .seh_setframe 5, 32
[WinEH] Emit __C_specific_handler tables for the new IR We emit denormalized tables, where every range of invokes in the same state gets a complete list of EH action entries. This is significantly simpler than trying to infer the correct nested scoping structure from the MI. Fortunately, for SEH, the nesting structure is really just a size optimization. With this, some basic __try / __except examples work. llvm-svn: 249078
2015-10-01 23:38:24 +02:00
; CHECK: .seh_endprologue
; CHECK: .Ltmp0:
; CHECK: movl $1, %ecx
; CHECK: xorl %edx, %edx
; CHECK: callq do_div
; CHECK: .Ltmp1:
; CHECK: .LBB1_[[epilogue:[0-9]+]]: # %__try.cont.12
; CHECK: xorl %eax, %eax
[WinEH] Only generate UnwindHelp slot for MSVCXX Summary: Other personalities don't use this special frame slot. Reviewers: majnemer, andrew.w.kaylor, rnk Subscribers: llvm-commits Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D14580 llvm-svn: 252778
2015-11-11 20:21:09 +01:00
; CHECK: addq $32, %rsp
[WinEH] Emit __C_specific_handler tables for the new IR We emit denormalized tables, where every range of invokes in the same state gets a complete list of EH action entries. This is significantly simpler than trying to infer the correct nested scoping structure from the MI. Fortunately, for SEH, the nesting structure is really just a size optimization. With this, some basic __try / __except examples work. llvm-svn: 249078
2015-10-01 23:38:24 +02:00
; CHECK: popq %rbp
; CHECK: retq
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies: - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM experts. - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes. This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation. - catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward. It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other funclets. - The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a representation which forbade them upfront. Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following: - Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable. - Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model the constraints of funclet oriented EH. - Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume the token produced by the funclet which contains them. - Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred implicitly using coloring information. N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a look to make sure the results are reasonable. Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139 llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 06:38:55 +01:00
; CHECK: .LBB1_[[except1bb:[0-9]+]]: # %__except
[WinEH] Emit __C_specific_handler tables for the new IR We emit denormalized tables, where every range of invokes in the same state gets a complete list of EH action entries. This is significantly simpler than trying to infer the correct nested scoping structure from the MI. Fortunately, for SEH, the nesting structure is really just a size optimization. With this, some basic __try / __except examples work. llvm-svn: 249078
2015-10-01 23:38:24 +02:00
; CHECK: .Ltmp2:
; CHECK: movl $1, %ecx
; CHECK: xorl %edx, %edx
; CHECK: callq do_div
; CHECK: .Ltmp3:
; CHECK: callq "?fin$0@0@main@@"
; CHECK: jmp .LBB1_[[epilogue]]
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies: - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM experts. - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes. This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation. - catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward. It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other funclets. - The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a representation which forbade them upfront. Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following: - Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable. - Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model the constraints of funclet oriented EH. - Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume the token produced by the funclet which contains them. - Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred implicitly using coloring information. N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a look to make sure the results are reasonable. Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139 llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 06:38:55 +01:00
; CHECK: .LBB1_[[except2bb:[0-9]+]]: # %__except.ret
[WinEH] Emit __C_specific_handler tables for the new IR We emit denormalized tables, where every range of invokes in the same state gets a complete list of EH action entries. This is significantly simpler than trying to infer the correct nested scoping structure from the MI. Fortunately, for SEH, the nesting structure is really just a size optimization. With this, some basic __try / __except examples work. llvm-svn: 249078
2015-10-01 23:38:24 +02:00
; CHECK: leaq "??_C@_06IBDBCMGJ@caught?$AA@"(%rip), %rcx
; CHECK: callq puts
; CHECK: jmp .LBB1_[[epilogue]]
; CHECK: .seh_handlerdata
[WinEH] Make llvm.x86.seh.recoverfp work on x64 It adjusts from RSP-after-prologue to RBP, which is what SEH filters need to do before they can use llvm.localrecover. Fixes SEH filter captures, which were broken in r250088. Issue reported by Alex Crichton. llvm-svn: 255707
2015-12-16 00:40:58 +01:00
; CHECK-NEXT: .Lmain$parent_frame_offset = 32
Call the correct overload. Call the correct overload so a string literal does not get converted to a bool. Also fix the test case to match the names given. llvm-svn: 249183
2015-10-02 22:52:14 +02:00
; CHECK-NEXT: .long (.Llsda_end0-.Llsda_begin0)/16
; CHECK-NEXT: .Llsda_begin0:
[SEH] Remember to emit the last invoke range for SEH This wasn't very observable in execution tests, because usually there is an invoke in the catchpad that unwinds the the catchendpad but never actually throws. llvm-svn: 249898
2015-10-09 22:39:39 +02:00
; CHECK-NEXT: .long .Ltmp0@IMGREL+1
[WinEH] Emit __C_specific_handler tables for the new IR We emit denormalized tables, where every range of invokes in the same state gets a complete list of EH action entries. This is significantly simpler than trying to infer the correct nested scoping structure from the MI. Fortunately, for SEH, the nesting structure is really just a size optimization. With this, some basic __try / __except examples work. llvm-svn: 249078
2015-10-01 23:38:24 +02:00
; CHECK-NEXT: .long .Ltmp1@IMGREL+1
; CHECK-NEXT: .long 1
; CHECK-NEXT: .long .LBB1_[[except1bb]]@IMGREL
[SEH] Remember to emit the last invoke range for SEH This wasn't very observable in execution tests, because usually there is an invoke in the catchpad that unwinds the the catchendpad but never actually throws. llvm-svn: 249898
2015-10-09 22:39:39 +02:00
; CHECK-NEXT: .long .Ltmp0@IMGREL+1
[WinEH] Emit __C_specific_handler tables for the new IR We emit denormalized tables, where every range of invokes in the same state gets a complete list of EH action entries. This is significantly simpler than trying to infer the correct nested scoping structure from the MI. Fortunately, for SEH, the nesting structure is really just a size optimization. With this, some basic __try / __except examples work. llvm-svn: 249078
2015-10-01 23:38:24 +02:00
; CHECK-NEXT: .long .Ltmp1@IMGREL+1
; CHECK-NEXT: .long "?filt$0@0@main@@"@IMGREL
; CHECK-NEXT: .long .LBB1_[[except2bb]]@IMGREL
[SEH] Remember to emit the last invoke range for SEH This wasn't very observable in execution tests, because usually there is an invoke in the catchpad that unwinds the the catchendpad but never actually throws. llvm-svn: 249898
2015-10-09 22:39:39 +02:00
; CHECK-NEXT: .long .Ltmp2@IMGREL+1
[WinEH] Emit __C_specific_handler tables for the new IR We emit denormalized tables, where every range of invokes in the same state gets a complete list of EH action entries. This is significantly simpler than trying to infer the correct nested scoping structure from the MI. Fortunately, for SEH, the nesting structure is really just a size optimization. With this, some basic __try / __except examples work. llvm-svn: 249078
2015-10-01 23:38:24 +02:00
; CHECK-NEXT: .long .Ltmp3@IMGREL+1
[WinEH] Refer to filter funclets using their symbol-table symbol The relocation for the filter funclet will be against a symbol table entry for a function instead of the section, making it easier to understand what is going on. llvm-svn: 249621
2015-10-07 23:34:00 +02:00
; CHECK-NEXT: .long "?dtor$[[finbb:[0-9]+]]@?0?main@4HA"@IMGREL
[WinEH] Emit __C_specific_handler tables for the new IR We emit denormalized tables, where every range of invokes in the same state gets a complete list of EH action entries. This is significantly simpler than trying to infer the correct nested scoping structure from the MI. Fortunately, for SEH, the nesting structure is really just a size optimization. With this, some basic __try / __except examples work. llvm-svn: 249078
2015-10-01 23:38:24 +02:00
; CHECK-NEXT: .long 0
[SEH] Remember to emit the last invoke range for SEH This wasn't very observable in execution tests, because usually there is an invoke in the catchpad that unwinds the the catchendpad but never actually throws. llvm-svn: 249898
2015-10-09 22:39:39 +02:00
; CHECK-NEXT: .long .Ltmp2@IMGREL+1
[WinEH] Emit __C_specific_handler tables for the new IR We emit denormalized tables, where every range of invokes in the same state gets a complete list of EH action entries. This is significantly simpler than trying to infer the correct nested scoping structure from the MI. Fortunately, for SEH, the nesting structure is really just a size optimization. With this, some basic __try / __except examples work. llvm-svn: 249078
2015-10-01 23:38:24 +02:00
; CHECK-NEXT: .long .Ltmp3@IMGREL+1
; CHECK-NEXT: .long "?filt$0@0@main@@"@IMGREL
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies: - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM experts. - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes. This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation. - catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward. It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other funclets. - The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a representation which forbade them upfront. Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following: - Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable. - Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model the constraints of funclet oriented EH. - Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume the token produced by the funclet which contains them. - Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred implicitly using coloring information. N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a look to make sure the results are reasonable. Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139 llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 06:38:55 +01:00
; CHECK-NEXT: .long .LBB1_3@IMGREL
[SEH] Remember to emit the last invoke range for SEH This wasn't very observable in execution tests, because usually there is an invoke in the catchpad that unwinds the the catchendpad but never actually throws. llvm-svn: 249898
2015-10-09 22:39:39 +02:00
; CHECK-NEXT: .long .Ltmp6@IMGREL+1
[SEH] Update SEH codegen tests to use the new IR Also Fix a buglet where SEH tables had ranges that spanned funclets. The remaining tests using the old landingpad IR are preparation tests, and will be deleted along with the old preparation. llvm-svn: 249917
2015-10-10 01:05:54 +02:00
; CHECK-NEXT: .long .Ltmp7@IMGREL+1
[SEH] Remember to emit the last invoke range for SEH This wasn't very observable in execution tests, because usually there is an invoke in the catchpad that unwinds the the catchendpad but never actually throws. llvm-svn: 249898
2015-10-09 22:39:39 +02:00
; CHECK-NEXT: .long "?filt$0@0@main@@"@IMGREL
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies: - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM experts. - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes. This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation. - catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward. It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other funclets. - The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a representation which forbade them upfront. Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following: - Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable. - Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model the constraints of funclet oriented EH. - Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume the token produced by the funclet which contains them. - Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred implicitly using coloring information. N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a look to make sure the results are reasonable. Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139 llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 06:38:55 +01:00
; CHECK-NEXT: .long .LBB1_3@IMGREL
Call the correct overload. Call the correct overload so a string literal does not get converted to a bool. Also fix the test case to match the names given. llvm-svn: 249183
2015-10-02 22:52:14 +02:00
; CHECK-NEXT: .Llsda_end0:
[WinEH] Emit __C_specific_handler tables for the new IR We emit denormalized tables, where every range of invokes in the same state gets a complete list of EH action entries. This is significantly simpler than trying to infer the correct nested scoping structure from the MI. Fortunately, for SEH, the nesting structure is really just a size optimization. With this, some basic __try / __except examples work. llvm-svn: 249078
2015-10-01 23:38:24 +02:00
; CHECK: .text
; CHECK: .seh_endproc
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies: - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM experts. - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes. This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation. - catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward. It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other funclets. - The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a representation which forbade them upfront. Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following: - Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable. - Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model the constraints of funclet oriented EH. - Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume the token produced by the funclet which contains them. - Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred implicitly using coloring information. N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a look to make sure the results are reasonable. Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139 llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 06:38:55 +01:00
; CHECK: "?dtor$[[finbb]]@?0?main@4HA":
; CHECK: .seh_proc "?dtor$[[finbb]]@?0?main@4HA"
Don't emit .seh_handler directives for any cleanup funclets We were falsely claiming that we had an LSDA for the relevant EH personality before this change, which could lead to the EH machinery interpreting random adjacent data as an LSDA. Fixes PR31317 This change is safe because cleanups can't contain exception handlers today. We do these things to maintain that invariant: - C++ destructors are naturally out-of-line - __finally blocks are outlined in clang - LLVM's inliner will not inline EH constructs into cleanups llvm-svn: 289101
2016-12-08 21:38:46 +01:00
; CHECK-NOT: .seh_handler
[WinEH] Emit __C_specific_handler tables for the new IR We emit denormalized tables, where every range of invokes in the same state gets a complete list of EH action entries. This is significantly simpler than trying to infer the correct nested scoping structure from the MI. Fortunately, for SEH, the nesting structure is really just a size optimization. With this, some basic __try / __except examples work. llvm-svn: 249078
2015-10-01 23:38:24 +02:00
; CHECK: .LBB1_[[finbb]]: # %ehcleanup
; CHECK: movq %rdx, 16(%rsp)
; CHECK: pushq %rbp
; CHECK: .seh_pushreg 5
; CHECK: subq $32, %rsp
; CHECK: .seh_stackalloc 32
[WinEH] Only generate UnwindHelp slot for MSVCXX Summary: Other personalities don't use this special frame slot. Reviewers: majnemer, andrew.w.kaylor, rnk Subscribers: llvm-commits Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D14580 llvm-svn: 252778
2015-11-11 20:21:09 +01:00
; CHECK: leaq 32(%rdx), %rbp
[WinEH] Emit __C_specific_handler tables for the new IR We emit denormalized tables, where every range of invokes in the same state gets a complete list of EH action entries. This is significantly simpler than trying to infer the correct nested scoping structure from the MI. Fortunately, for SEH, the nesting structure is really just a size optimization. With this, some basic __try / __except examples work. llvm-svn: 249078
2015-10-01 23:38:24 +02:00
; CHECK: .seh_endprologue
; CHECK: callq "?fin$0@0@main@@"
; CHECK: nop
; CHECK: addq $32, %rsp
; CHECK: popq %rbp
; CHECK: retq
; CHECK: .seh_handlerdata
; CHECK: .seh_endproc
define internal i32 @"\01?filt$0@0@main@@"(i8* nocapture readnone %exception_pointers, i8* nocapture readnone %frame_pointer) #1 {
entry:
%call = tail call i32 @filt()
ret i32 %call
}
; CHECK: "?filt$0@0@main@@": # @"\01?filt$0@0@main@@"
Win64: Don't use REX prefix for direct tail calls The REX prefix should be used on indirect jmps, but not direct ones. For direct jumps, the unwinder looks at the offset to determine if it's inside the current function. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D24359 llvm-svn: 281003
2016-09-09 01:35:10 +02:00
; CHECK: jmp filt # TAILCALL
[WinEH] Emit __C_specific_handler tables for the new IR We emit denormalized tables, where every range of invokes in the same state gets a complete list of EH action entries. This is significantly simpler than trying to infer the correct nested scoping structure from the MI. Fortunately, for SEH, the nesting structure is really just a size optimization. With this, some basic __try / __except examples work. llvm-svn: 249078
2015-10-01 23:38:24 +02:00
declare i32 @filt() #1
declare i32 @__C_specific_handler(...)
; Function Attrs: noinline nounwind
define internal fastcc void @"\01?fin$0@0@main@@"() #2 {
entry:
%call = tail call i32 @puts(i8* getelementptr inbounds ([8 x i8], [8 x i8]* @"\01??_C@_07MKBLAIAL@finally?$AA@", i64 0, i64 0)) #5
ret void
}
; Function Attrs: nounwind
declare i32 @puts(i8* nocapture readonly) #3
attributes #0 = { nounwind readnone "disable-tail-calls"="false" "less-precise-fpmad"="false" "no-frame-pointer-elim"="false" "no-infs-fp-math"="false" "no-nans-fp-math"="false" "stack-protector-buffer-size"="8" "target-features"="+sse,+sse2" "unsafe-fp-math"="false" "use-soft-float"="false" }
attributes #1 = { "disable-tail-calls"="false" "less-precise-fpmad"="false" "no-frame-pointer-elim"="false" "no-infs-fp-math"="false" "no-nans-fp-math"="false" "stack-protector-buffer-size"="8" "target-features"="+sse,+sse2" "unsafe-fp-math"="false" "use-soft-float"="false" }
attributes #2 = { noinline nounwind "disable-tail-calls"="false" "less-precise-fpmad"="false" "no-frame-pointer-elim"="false" "no-infs-fp-math"="false" "no-nans-fp-math"="false" "stack-protector-buffer-size"="8" "target-features"="+sse,+sse2" "unsafe-fp-math"="false" "use-soft-float"="false" }
attributes #3 = { nounwind "disable-tail-calls"="false" "less-precise-fpmad"="false" "no-frame-pointer-elim"="false" "no-infs-fp-math"="false" "no-nans-fp-math"="false" "stack-protector-buffer-size"="8" "target-features"="+sse,+sse2" "unsafe-fp-math"="false" "use-soft-float"="false" }
attributes #4 = { noinline }
attributes #5 = { nounwind }
Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink