RPCS3/llvm-mirror
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/RPCS3/llvm-mirror.git synced 2024-10-23 21:13:02 +02:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Wiki Activity
194ee6ba44
llvm-mirror/test/CodeGen/X86/win-catchpad.ll

354 lines
10 KiB
LLVM
Raw Normal View History

[WinEH] Tweak funclet prologue/epilogue insertion to pass verifier For some reason we'd never run MachineVerifier on WinEH code, and you explicitly have to ask for it with llc. I added it to a few test cases to get some coverage. Fixes PR25461. llvm-svn: 252512
2015-11-09 22:04:00 +01:00
; RUN: llc -verify-machineinstrs -mtriple=i686-pc-windows-msvc < %s | FileCheck --check-prefix=X86 %s
; RUN: llc -verify-machineinstrs -mtriple=x86_64-pc-windows-msvc < %s | FileCheck --check-prefix=X64 %s
[WinEH] Add some support for code generating catchpad We can now run 32-bit programs with empty catch bodies. The next step is to change PEI so that we get funclet prologues and epilogues. llvm-svn: 246235
2015-08-28 01:27:47 +02:00
; Loosely based on IR for this C++ source code:
; void f(int p);
; int main() {
; try {
; f(1);
[WinEH] Pull Adjectives and CatchObj out of the catchpad arg list Clang now passes the adjectives as an argument to catchpad. Getting the CatchObj working is simply a matter of threading another static alloca through codegen, first as an alloca, then as a frame index, and finally as a frame offset. llvm-svn: 247844
2015-09-16 22:16:27 +02:00
; } catch (int e) {
; f(e);
[WinEH] Add some support for code generating catchpad We can now run 32-bit programs with empty catch bodies. The next step is to change PEI so that we get funclet prologues and epilogues. llvm-svn: 246235
2015-08-28 01:27:47 +02:00
; } catch (...) {
; f(3);
; }
; }
%rtti.TypeDescriptor2 = type { i8**, i8*, [3 x i8] }
%eh.CatchableType = type { i32, i8*, i32, i32, i32, i32, i8* }
%eh.CatchableTypeArray.1 = type { i32, [1 x %eh.CatchableType*] }
%eh.ThrowInfo = type { i32, i8*, i8*, i8* }
$"\01??_R0H@8" = comdat any
@"\01??_7type_info@@6B@" = external constant i8*
@"\01??_R0H@8" = linkonce_odr global %rtti.TypeDescriptor2 { i8** @"\01??_7type_info@@6B@", i8* null, [3 x i8] c".H\00" }, comdat
[WinEH] Emit prologues and epilogues for funclets Summary: 32-bit funclets have short prologues that allocate enough stack for the largest call in the whole function. The runtime saves CSRs for the funclet. It doesn't restore CSRs after we finally transfer control back to the parent funciton via a CATCHRET, but that's a separate issue. 32-bit funclets also have to adjust the incoming EBP value, which is what llvm.x86.seh.recoverframe does in the old model. 64-bit funclets need to spill CSRs as normal. For simplicity, this just spills the same set of CSRs as the parent function, rather than trying to compute different CSR sets for the parent function and each funclet. 64-bit funclets also allocate enough stack space for the largest outgoing call frame, like 32-bit. Reviewers: majnemer Subscribers: llvm-commits Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12546 llvm-svn: 247092
2015-09-09 00:44:41 +02:00
declare void @f(i32 %p, i32* %l)
[WinEH] Create a separate MBB for funclet prologues Our current emission strategy is to emit the funclet prologue in the CatchPad's normal destination. This is problematic because intra-funclet control flow to the normal destination is not erroneous and results in us reevaluating the prologue if said control flow is taken. Instead, use the CatchPad's location for the funclet prologue. This correctly models our desire to have unwind edges evaluate the prologue but edges to the normal destination result in typical control flow. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13424 llvm-svn: 249483
2015-10-07 01:31:59 +02:00
declare i1 @getbool()
[WinEH] Add some support for code generating catchpad We can now run 32-bit programs with empty catch bodies. The next step is to change PEI so that we get funclet prologues and epilogues. llvm-svn: 246235
2015-08-28 01:27:47 +02:00
declare i32 @__CxxFrameHandler3(...)
[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
define i32 @try_catch_catch() personality i32 (...)* @__CxxFrameHandler3 {
[WinEH] Add some support for code generating catchpad We can now run 32-bit programs with empty catch bodies. The next step is to change PEI so that we get funclet prologues and epilogues. llvm-svn: 246235
2015-08-28 01:27:47 +02:00
entry:
[WinEH] Pull Adjectives and CatchObj out of the catchpad arg list Clang now passes the adjectives as an argument to catchpad. Getting the CatchObj working is simply a matter of threading another static alloca through codegen, first as an alloca, then as a frame index, and finally as a frame offset. llvm-svn: 247844
2015-09-16 22:16:27 +02:00
%e.addr = alloca i32
[WinEH] Emit prologues and epilogues for funclets Summary: 32-bit funclets have short prologues that allocate enough stack for the largest call in the whole function. The runtime saves CSRs for the funclet. It doesn't restore CSRs after we finally transfer control back to the parent funciton via a CATCHRET, but that's a separate issue. 32-bit funclets also have to adjust the incoming EBP value, which is what llvm.x86.seh.recoverframe does in the old model. 64-bit funclets need to spill CSRs as normal. For simplicity, this just spills the same set of CSRs as the parent function, rather than trying to compute different CSR sets for the parent function and each funclet. 64-bit funclets also allocate enough stack space for the largest outgoing call frame, like 32-bit. Reviewers: majnemer Subscribers: llvm-commits Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12546 llvm-svn: 247092
2015-09-09 00:44:41 +02:00
%local = alloca i32
invoke void @f(i32 1, i32* %local)
[WinEH] Add some support for code generating catchpad We can now run 32-bit programs with empty catch bodies. The next step is to change PEI so that we get funclet prologues and epilogues. llvm-svn: 246235
2015-08-28 01:27:47 +02:00
to label %try.cont unwind label %catch.dispatch
catch.dispatch: ; preds = %entry
[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
%cs = catchswitch within none [label %handler1, label %handler2] unwind to caller
[WinEH] Add some support for code generating catchpad We can now run 32-bit programs with empty catch bodies. The next step is to change PEI so that we get funclet prologues and epilogues. llvm-svn: 246235
2015-08-28 01:27:47 +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
handler1:
%h1 = catchpad within %cs [%rtti.TypeDescriptor2* @"\01??_R0H@8", i32 0, i32* %e.addr]
[WinEH] Pull Adjectives and CatchObj out of the catchpad arg list Clang now passes the adjectives as an argument to catchpad. Getting the CatchObj working is simply a matter of threading another static alloca through codegen, first as an alloca, then as a frame index, and finally as a frame offset. llvm-svn: 247844
2015-09-16 22:16:27 +02:00
%e = load i32, i32* %e.addr
[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
call void @f(i32 %e, i32* %local) [ "funclet"(token %h1) ]
[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
catchret from %h1 to label %try.cont
[WinEH] Add some support for code generating catchpad We can now run 32-bit programs with empty catch bodies. The next step is to change PEI so that we get funclet prologues and epilogues. llvm-svn: 246235
2015-08-28 01:27:47 +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
handler2:
%h2 = catchpad within %cs [i8* null, i32 64, i8* null]
[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
call void @f(i32 3, i32* %local) [ "funclet"(token %h2) ]
[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
catchret from %h2 to label %try.cont
[WinEH] Add some support for code generating catchpad We can now run 32-bit programs with empty catch bodies. The next step is to change PEI so that we get funclet prologues and epilogues. llvm-svn: 246235
2015-08-28 01:27:47 +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
try.cont:
[WinEH] Add some support for code generating catchpad We can now run 32-bit programs with empty catch bodies. The next step is to change PEI so that we get funclet prologues and epilogues. llvm-svn: 246235
2015-08-28 01:27:47 +02:00
ret i32 0
}
; X86-LABEL: _try_catch_catch:
[WinEH] Fix ESP management with 32-bit __CxxFrameHandler3 The C++ EH personality automatically restores ESP from the C++ EH registration node after a catchret. I mistakenly thought it was like SEH, which does not restore ESP. It makes sense for C++ EH to differ from SEH here because SEH does not use funclets for catches, and does not allow catching inside of finally. C++ EH may need to unwind through multiple catch funclets and eventually catchret to some outer funclet. Therefore, the runtime has to keep track of which ESP to use with catchret, rather than having the compiler reload it manually. llvm-svn: 253084
2015-11-13 22:27:00 +01:00
; X86: movl %esp, -[[sp_offset:[0-9]+]](%ebp)
[WinEH] Add some support for code generating catchpad We can now run 32-bit programs with empty catch bodies. The next step is to change PEI so that we get funclet prologues and epilogues. llvm-svn: 246235
2015-08-28 01:27:47 +02:00
; X86: movl $0, -{{[0-9]+}}(%ebp)
[WinEH] Emit prologues and epilogues for funclets Summary: 32-bit funclets have short prologues that allocate enough stack for the largest call in the whole function. The runtime saves CSRs for the funclet. It doesn't restore CSRs after we finally transfer control back to the parent funciton via a CATCHRET, but that's a separate issue. 32-bit funclets also have to adjust the incoming EBP value, which is what llvm.x86.seh.recoverframe does in the old model. 64-bit funclets need to spill CSRs as normal. For simplicity, this just spills the same set of CSRs as the parent function, rather than trying to compute different CSR sets for the parent function and each funclet. 64-bit funclets also allocate enough stack space for the largest outgoing call frame, like 32-bit. Reviewers: majnemer Subscribers: llvm-commits Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12546 llvm-svn: 247092
2015-09-09 00:44:41 +02:00
; X86: leal -[[local_offs:[0-9]+]](%ebp), %[[addr_reg:[a-z]+]]
; X86-DAG: movl %[[addr_reg]], 4(%esp)
; X86-DAG: movl $1, (%esp)
[WinEH] Add some support for code generating catchpad We can now run 32-bit programs with empty catch bodies. The next step is to change PEI so that we get funclet prologues and epilogues. llvm-svn: 246235
2015-08-28 01:27:47 +02:00
; X86: calll _f
[WinEH] Make funclet return instrs pseudo instrs This makes catchret look more like a branch, and less like a weird use of BlockAddress. It also lets us get away from llvm.x86.seh.restoreframe, which relies on the old parentfpoffset label arithmetic. llvm-svn: 247936
2015-09-17 22:43:47 +02:00
; X86: [[contbb:LBB0_[0-9]+]]: # %try.cont
[WinEH] Add some support for code generating catchpad We can now run 32-bit programs with empty catch bodies. The next step is to change PEI so that we get funclet prologues and epilogues. llvm-svn: 246235
2015-08-28 01:27:47 +02:00
; X86: retl
[CodeGen] Mark setjmp/catchret MBBs address-taken Summary: This ensures that BranchFolding (and similar) won't remove these blocks. Also allow AsmPrinter::EmitBasicBlockStart to process MBBs which are address-taken but do not have BBs that are address-taken, since otherwise its call to getAddrLabelSymbolTableToEmit would fail an assertion on such blocks. I audited the other callers of getAddrLabelSymbolTableToEmit (and getAddrLabelSymbol); they all have BBs known to be address-taken except for the call through getAddrLabelSymbol from WinException::create32bitRef; that call is actually now unreachable, so I've removed it and updated the signature of create32bitRef. This fixes PR25168. Reviewers: majnemer, andrew.w.kaylor, rnk Subscribers: pgavlin, llvm-commits Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13774 llvm-svn: 251113
2015-10-23 17:06:05 +02:00
; X86: [[restorebb1:LBB0_[0-9]+]]: # Block address taken
[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
; X86-NEXT: # %handler1
[WinEH] Fix ESP management with 32-bit __CxxFrameHandler3 The C++ EH personality automatically restores ESP from the C++ EH registration node after a catchret. I mistakenly thought it was like SEH, which does not restore ESP. It makes sense for C++ EH to differ from SEH here because SEH does not use funclets for catches, and does not allow catching inside of finally. C++ EH may need to unwind through multiple catch funclets and eventually catchret to some outer funclet. Therefore, the runtime has to keep track of which ESP to use with catchret, rather than having the compiler reload it manually. llvm-svn: 253084
2015-11-13 22:27:00 +01:00
; X86-NEXT: addl $12, %ebp
[WinEH] Ensure that funclets obey the x64 ABI The x64 ABI requires that epilogues do not contain code other than stack adjustments and some limited control flow. However, we'd insert code to initialize the return address after stack adjustments. Instead, insert EAX/RAX with the current value before we create the stack adjustments in the epilogue. llvm-svn: 248839
2015-09-30 00:33:36 +02:00
; X86: jmp [[contbb]]
Assign correct edge weights to unwind destinations when lowering invoke statement. When lowering invoke statement, all unwind destinations are directly added as successors of call site block, and the weight of those new edges are not assigned properly. Actually, default weight 16 are used for those edges. This patch calculates the proper edge weights for those edges when collecting all unwind destinations. Differential revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13354 llvm-svn: 250119
2015-10-13 01:02:58 +02:00
; FIXME: These should be de-duplicated.
[CodeGen] Mark setjmp/catchret MBBs address-taken Summary: This ensures that BranchFolding (and similar) won't remove these blocks. Also allow AsmPrinter::EmitBasicBlockStart to process MBBs which are address-taken but do not have BBs that are address-taken, since otherwise its call to getAddrLabelSymbolTableToEmit would fail an assertion on such blocks. I audited the other callers of getAddrLabelSymbolTableToEmit (and getAddrLabelSymbol); they all have BBs known to be address-taken except for the call through getAddrLabelSymbol from WinException::create32bitRef; that call is actually now unreachable, so I've removed it and updated the signature of create32bitRef. This fixes PR25168. Reviewers: majnemer, andrew.w.kaylor, rnk Subscribers: pgavlin, llvm-commits Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13774 llvm-svn: 251113
2015-10-23 17:06:05 +02:00
; X86: [[restorebb2:LBB0_[0-9]+]]: # Block address taken
[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
; X86-NEXT: # %handler2
[WinEH] Fix ESP management with 32-bit __CxxFrameHandler3 The C++ EH personality automatically restores ESP from the C++ EH registration node after a catchret. I mistakenly thought it was like SEH, which does not restore ESP. It makes sense for C++ EH to differ from SEH here because SEH does not use funclets for catches, and does not allow catching inside of finally. C++ EH may need to unwind through multiple catch funclets and eventually catchret to some outer funclet. Therefore, the runtime has to keep track of which ESP to use with catchret, rather than having the compiler reload it manually. llvm-svn: 253084
2015-11-13 22:27:00 +01:00
; X86-NEXT: addl $12, %ebp
[WinEH] Fix tests broken by funclet-layout llvm-svn: 247944
2015-09-17 23:11:12 +02:00
; X86: jmp [[contbb]]
[WinEH] Teach AsmPrinter about funclets Summary: Funclets have been turned into functions by the time they hit the object file. Make sure that they have decent names for the symbol table and CFI directives explaining how to reason about their prologues. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13261 llvm-svn: 248824
2015-09-29 22:12:33 +02:00
; X86: "?catch$[[catch1bb:[0-9]+]]@?0?try_catch_catch@4HA":
[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
; X86: LBB0_[[catch1bb]]: # %handler1{{$}}
[WinEH] Push and pop EBP for 32-bit funclets The Win32 EH runtime caller does not preserve EBP, even though it does preserve the CSRs (EBX, ESI, EDI) for us. The result was that each finally funclet call would leave the frame pointer off by 12 bytes. llvm-svn: 247348
2015-09-11 00:00:02 +02:00
; X86: pushl %ebp
[WinEH] Emit prologues and epilogues for funclets Summary: 32-bit funclets have short prologues that allocate enough stack for the largest call in the whole function. The runtime saves CSRs for the funclet. It doesn't restore CSRs after we finally transfer control back to the parent funciton via a CATCHRET, but that's a separate issue. 32-bit funclets also have to adjust the incoming EBP value, which is what llvm.x86.seh.recoverframe does in the old model. 64-bit funclets need to spill CSRs as normal. For simplicity, this just spills the same set of CSRs as the parent function, rather than trying to compute different CSR sets for the parent function and each funclet. 64-bit funclets also allocate enough stack space for the largest outgoing call frame, like 32-bit. Reviewers: majnemer Subscribers: llvm-commits Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12546 llvm-svn: 247092
2015-09-09 00:44:41 +02:00
; X86: subl $8, %esp
[WinEH] Setup RBP correctly in Win64 funclet prologues Previously local variable captures just didn't work in 64-bit. Now we can access local variables more or less correctly. llvm-svn: 248857
2015-09-30 01:32:01 +02:00
; X86: addl $12, %ebp
[WinEH] Fix ESP management with 32-bit __CxxFrameHandler3 The C++ EH personality automatically restores ESP from the C++ EH registration node after a catchret. I mistakenly thought it was like SEH, which does not restore ESP. It makes sense for C++ EH to differ from SEH here because SEH does not use funclets for catches, and does not allow catching inside of finally. C++ EH may need to unwind through multiple catch funclets and eventually catchret to some outer funclet. Therefore, the runtime has to keep track of which ESP to use with catchret, rather than having the compiler reload it manually. llvm-svn: 253084
2015-11-13 22:27:00 +01:00
; X86: movl %esp, -[[sp_offset]](%ebp)
[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
; X86-DAG: movl -32(%ebp), %[[e_reg:[a-z]+]]
; X86-DAG: leal -[[local_offs]](%ebp), %[[addr_reg:[a-z]+]]
; X86-DAG: movl $1, -{{[0-9]+}}(%ebp)
[WinEH] Emit prologues and epilogues for funclets Summary: 32-bit funclets have short prologues that allocate enough stack for the largest call in the whole function. The runtime saves CSRs for the funclet. It doesn't restore CSRs after we finally transfer control back to the parent funciton via a CATCHRET, but that's a separate issue. 32-bit funclets also have to adjust the incoming EBP value, which is what llvm.x86.seh.recoverframe does in the old model. 64-bit funclets need to spill CSRs as normal. For simplicity, this just spills the same set of CSRs as the parent function, rather than trying to compute different CSR sets for the parent function and each funclet. 64-bit funclets also allocate enough stack space for the largest outgoing call frame, like 32-bit. Reviewers: majnemer Subscribers: llvm-commits Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12546 llvm-svn: 247092
2015-09-09 00:44:41 +02:00
; X86-DAG: movl %[[addr_reg]], 4(%esp)
[WinEH] Pull Adjectives and CatchObj out of the catchpad arg list Clang now passes the adjectives as an argument to catchpad. Getting the CatchObj working is simply a matter of threading another static alloca through codegen, first as an alloca, then as a frame index, and finally as a frame offset. llvm-svn: 247844
2015-09-16 22:16:27 +02:00
; X86-DAG: movl %[[e_reg]], (%esp)
[WinEH] Add some support for code generating catchpad We can now run 32-bit programs with empty catch bodies. The next step is to change PEI so that we get funclet prologues and epilogues. llvm-svn: 246235
2015-08-28 01:27:47 +02:00
; X86: calll _f
[WinEH] Ensure that funclets obey the x64 ABI The x64 ABI requires that epilogues do not contain code other than stack adjustments and some limited control flow. However, we'd insert code to initialize the return address after stack adjustments. Instead, insert EAX/RAX with the current value before we create the stack adjustments in the epilogue. llvm-svn: 248839
2015-09-30 00:33:36 +02:00
; X86-NEXT: movl $[[restorebb1]], %eax
[WinEH] Emit prologues and epilogues for funclets Summary: 32-bit funclets have short prologues that allocate enough stack for the largest call in the whole function. The runtime saves CSRs for the funclet. It doesn't restore CSRs after we finally transfer control back to the parent funciton via a CATCHRET, but that's a separate issue. 32-bit funclets also have to adjust the incoming EBP value, which is what llvm.x86.seh.recoverframe does in the old model. 64-bit funclets need to spill CSRs as normal. For simplicity, this just spills the same set of CSRs as the parent function, rather than trying to compute different CSR sets for the parent function and each funclet. 64-bit funclets also allocate enough stack space for the largest outgoing call frame, like 32-bit. Reviewers: majnemer Subscribers: llvm-commits Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12546 llvm-svn: 247092
2015-09-09 00:44:41 +02:00
; X86-NEXT: addl $8, %esp
[WinEH] Push and pop EBP for 32-bit funclets The Win32 EH runtime caller does not preserve EBP, even though it does preserve the CSRs (EBX, ESI, EDI) for us. The result was that each finally funclet call would leave the frame pointer off by 12 bytes. llvm-svn: 247348
2015-09-11 00:00:02 +02:00
; X86-NEXT: popl %ebp
[WinEH] Add some support for code generating catchpad We can now run 32-bit programs with empty catch bodies. The next step is to change PEI so that we get funclet prologues and epilogues. llvm-svn: 246235
2015-08-28 01:27:47 +02:00
; X86-NEXT: retl
[WinEH] Teach AsmPrinter about funclets Summary: Funclets have been turned into functions by the time they hit the object file. Make sure that they have decent names for the symbol table and CFI directives explaining how to reason about their prologues. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13261 llvm-svn: 248824
2015-09-29 22:12:33 +02:00
; X86: "?catch$[[catch2bb:[0-9]+]]@?0?try_catch_catch@4HA":
[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
; X86: LBB0_[[catch2bb]]: # %handler2{{$}}
[WinEH] Push and pop EBP for 32-bit funclets The Win32 EH runtime caller does not preserve EBP, even though it does preserve the CSRs (EBX, ESI, EDI) for us. The result was that each finally funclet call would leave the frame pointer off by 12 bytes. llvm-svn: 247348
2015-09-11 00:00:02 +02:00
; X86: pushl %ebp
[WinEH] Emit prologues and epilogues for funclets Summary: 32-bit funclets have short prologues that allocate enough stack for the largest call in the whole function. The runtime saves CSRs for the funclet. It doesn't restore CSRs after we finally transfer control back to the parent funciton via a CATCHRET, but that's a separate issue. 32-bit funclets also have to adjust the incoming EBP value, which is what llvm.x86.seh.recoverframe does in the old model. 64-bit funclets need to spill CSRs as normal. For simplicity, this just spills the same set of CSRs as the parent function, rather than trying to compute different CSR sets for the parent function and each funclet. 64-bit funclets also allocate enough stack space for the largest outgoing call frame, like 32-bit. Reviewers: majnemer Subscribers: llvm-commits Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12546 llvm-svn: 247092
2015-09-09 00:44:41 +02:00
; X86: subl $8, %esp
[WinEH] Setup RBP correctly in Win64 funclet prologues Previously local variable captures just didn't work in 64-bit. Now we can access local variables more or less correctly. llvm-svn: 248857
2015-09-30 01:32:01 +02:00
; X86: addl $12, %ebp
[WinEH] Fix ESP management with 32-bit __CxxFrameHandler3 The C++ EH personality automatically restores ESP from the C++ EH registration node after a catchret. I mistakenly thought it was like SEH, which does not restore ESP. It makes sense for C++ EH to differ from SEH here because SEH does not use funclets for catches, and does not allow catching inside of finally. C++ EH may need to unwind through multiple catch funclets and eventually catchret to some outer funclet. Therefore, the runtime has to keep track of which ESP to use with catchret, rather than having the compiler reload it manually. llvm-svn: 253084
2015-11-13 22:27:00 +01:00
; X86: movl %esp, -[[sp_offset]](%ebp)
[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
; X86-DAG: leal -[[local_offs]](%ebp), %[[addr_reg:[a-z]+]]
; X86-DAG: movl $1, -{{[0-9]+}}(%ebp)
[WinEH] Emit prologues and epilogues for funclets Summary: 32-bit funclets have short prologues that allocate enough stack for the largest call in the whole function. The runtime saves CSRs for the funclet. It doesn't restore CSRs after we finally transfer control back to the parent funciton via a CATCHRET, but that's a separate issue. 32-bit funclets also have to adjust the incoming EBP value, which is what llvm.x86.seh.recoverframe does in the old model. 64-bit funclets need to spill CSRs as normal. For simplicity, this just spills the same set of CSRs as the parent function, rather than trying to compute different CSR sets for the parent function and each funclet. 64-bit funclets also allocate enough stack space for the largest outgoing call frame, like 32-bit. Reviewers: majnemer Subscribers: llvm-commits Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12546 llvm-svn: 247092
2015-09-09 00:44:41 +02:00
; X86-DAG: movl %[[addr_reg]], 4(%esp)
; X86-DAG: movl $3, (%esp)
[WinEH] Add some support for code generating catchpad We can now run 32-bit programs with empty catch bodies. The next step is to change PEI so that we get funclet prologues and epilogues. llvm-svn: 246235
2015-08-28 01:27:47 +02:00
; X86: calll _f
[WinEH] Ensure that funclets obey the x64 ABI The x64 ABI requires that epilogues do not contain code other than stack adjustments and some limited control flow. However, we'd insert code to initialize the return address after stack adjustments. Instead, insert EAX/RAX with the current value before we create the stack adjustments in the epilogue. llvm-svn: 248839
2015-09-30 00:33:36 +02:00
; X86-NEXT: movl $[[restorebb2]], %eax
[WinEH] Emit prologues and epilogues for funclets Summary: 32-bit funclets have short prologues that allocate enough stack for the largest call in the whole function. The runtime saves CSRs for the funclet. It doesn't restore CSRs after we finally transfer control back to the parent funciton via a CATCHRET, but that's a separate issue. 32-bit funclets also have to adjust the incoming EBP value, which is what llvm.x86.seh.recoverframe does in the old model. 64-bit funclets need to spill CSRs as normal. For simplicity, this just spills the same set of CSRs as the parent function, rather than trying to compute different CSR sets for the parent function and each funclet. 64-bit funclets also allocate enough stack space for the largest outgoing call frame, like 32-bit. Reviewers: majnemer Subscribers: llvm-commits Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12546 llvm-svn: 247092
2015-09-09 00:44:41 +02:00
; X86-NEXT: addl $8, %esp
[WinEH] Push and pop EBP for 32-bit funclets The Win32 EH runtime caller does not preserve EBP, even though it does preserve the CSRs (EBX, ESI, EDI) for us. The result was that each finally funclet call would leave the frame pointer off by 12 bytes. llvm-svn: 247348
2015-09-11 00:00:02 +02:00
; X86-NEXT: popl %ebp
[WinEH] Add some support for code generating catchpad We can now run 32-bit programs with empty catch bodies. The next step is to change PEI so that we get funclet prologues and epilogues. llvm-svn: 246235
2015-08-28 01:27:47 +02:00
; X86-NEXT: retl
; X86: L__ehtable$try_catch_catch:
; X86: $handlerMap$0$try_catch_catch:
[WinEH] Pull Adjectives and CatchObj out of the catchpad arg list Clang now passes the adjectives as an argument to catchpad. Getting the CatchObj working is simply a matter of threading another static alloca through codegen, first as an alloca, then as a frame index, and finally as a frame offset. llvm-svn: 247844
2015-09-16 22:16:27 +02:00
; X86-NEXT: .long 0
; X86-NEXT: .long "??_R0H@8"
[WinEH] Undo the effect of r249578 for 32-bit The __CxxFrameHandler3 tables for 32-bit are supposed to hold stack offsets relative to EBP, not ESP. I blindly updated the win-catchpad.ll test case, and immediately noticed that 32-bit catching stopped working. While I'm at it, move the frame index to frame offset WinEH table logic out of PEI. PEI shouldn't have to know about WinEHFuncInfo. I realized we can calculate frame index offsets just fine from the table printer. llvm-svn: 249618
2015-10-07 23:13:15 +02:00
; X86-NEXT: .long -20
[WinEH] Teach AsmPrinter about funclets Summary: Funclets have been turned into functions by the time they hit the object file. Make sure that they have decent names for the symbol table and CFI directives explaining how to reason about their prologues. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13261 llvm-svn: 248824
2015-09-29 22:12:33 +02:00
; X86-NEXT: .long "?catch$[[catch1bb]]@?0?try_catch_catch@4HA"
[WinEH] Pull Adjectives and CatchObj out of the catchpad arg list Clang now passes the adjectives as an argument to catchpad. Getting the CatchObj working is simply a matter of threading another static alloca through codegen, first as an alloca, then as a frame index, and finally as a frame offset. llvm-svn: 247844
2015-09-16 22:16:27 +02:00
; X86-NEXT: .long 64
; X86-NEXT: .long 0
; X86-NEXT: .long 0
[WinEH] Teach AsmPrinter about funclets Summary: Funclets have been turned into functions by the time they hit the object file. Make sure that they have decent names for the symbol table and CFI directives explaining how to reason about their prologues. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13261 llvm-svn: 248824
2015-09-29 22:12:33 +02:00
; X86-NEXT: .long "?catch$[[catch2bb]]@?0?try_catch_catch@4HA"
[WinEH] Add some support for code generating catchpad We can now run 32-bit programs with empty catch bodies. The next step is to change PEI so that we get funclet prologues and epilogues. llvm-svn: 246235
2015-08-28 01:27:47 +02:00
; X64-LABEL: try_catch_catch:
[WinEH] Fix ip2state table emission with funclets Previously we were hijacking the old LandingPadInfo data structures to communicate our state numbers. Now we don't need that anymore. llvm-svn: 248763
2015-09-29 01:56:30 +02:00
; X64: Lfunc_begin0:
[WinEH] Emit prologues and epilogues for funclets Summary: 32-bit funclets have short prologues that allocate enough stack for the largest call in the whole function. The runtime saves CSRs for the funclet. It doesn't restore CSRs after we finally transfer control back to the parent funciton via a CATCHRET, but that's a separate issue. 32-bit funclets also have to adjust the incoming EBP value, which is what llvm.x86.seh.recoverframe does in the old model. 64-bit funclets need to spill CSRs as normal. For simplicity, this just spills the same set of CSRs as the parent function, rather than trying to compute different CSR sets for the parent function and each funclet. 64-bit funclets also allocate enough stack space for the largest outgoing call frame, like 32-bit. Reviewers: majnemer Subscribers: llvm-commits Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12546 llvm-svn: 247092
2015-09-09 00:44:41 +02:00
; X64: pushq %rbp
; X64: .seh_pushreg 5
; X64: subq $48, %rsp
; X64: .seh_stackalloc 48
; X64: leaq 48(%rsp), %rbp
; X64: .seh_setframe 5, 48
[WinEH] Setup RBP correctly in Win64 funclet prologues Previously local variable captures just didn't work in 64-bit. Now we can access local variables more or less correctly. llvm-svn: 248857
2015-09-30 01:32:01 +02:00
; X64: .seh_endprologue
[WinEH] Make UnwindHelp a fixed stack object allocated after XMM CSRs Now the offset of UnwindHelp in our EH tables and the offset that we store to in the prologue agree. llvm-svn: 253059
2015-11-13 20:06:01 +01:00
; X64: movq $-2, -8(%rbp)
[WinEH] Fix ip2state table emission with funclets Previously we were hijacking the old LandingPadInfo data structures to communicate our state numbers. Now we don't need that anymore. llvm-svn: 248763
2015-09-29 01:56:30 +02:00
; X64: .Ltmp0
[WinEH] Emit prologues and epilogues for funclets Summary: 32-bit funclets have short prologues that allocate enough stack for the largest call in the whole function. The runtime saves CSRs for the funclet. It doesn't restore CSRs after we finally transfer control back to the parent funciton via a CATCHRET, but that's a separate issue. 32-bit funclets also have to adjust the incoming EBP value, which is what llvm.x86.seh.recoverframe does in the old model. 64-bit funclets need to spill CSRs as normal. For simplicity, this just spills the same set of CSRs as the parent function, rather than trying to compute different CSR sets for the parent function and each funclet. 64-bit funclets also allocate enough stack space for the largest outgoing call frame, like 32-bit. Reviewers: majnemer Subscribers: llvm-commits Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12546 llvm-svn: 247092
2015-09-09 00:44:41 +02:00
; X64-DAG: leaq -[[local_offs:[0-9]+]](%rbp), %rdx
; X64-DAG: movl $1, %ecx
[WinEH] Add some support for code generating catchpad We can now run 32-bit programs with empty catch bodies. The next step is to change PEI so that we get funclet prologues and epilogues. llvm-svn: 246235
2015-08-28 01:27:47 +02:00
; X64: callq f
[CodeGen] Mark setjmp/catchret MBBs address-taken Summary: This ensures that BranchFolding (and similar) won't remove these blocks. Also allow AsmPrinter::EmitBasicBlockStart to process MBBs which are address-taken but do not have BBs that are address-taken, since otherwise its call to getAddrLabelSymbolTableToEmit would fail an assertion on such blocks. I audited the other callers of getAddrLabelSymbolTableToEmit (and getAddrLabelSymbol); they all have BBs known to be address-taken except for the call through getAddrLabelSymbol from WinException::create32bitRef; that call is actually now unreachable, so I've removed it and updated the signature of create32bitRef. This fixes PR25168. Reviewers: majnemer, andrew.w.kaylor, rnk Subscribers: pgavlin, llvm-commits Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13774 llvm-svn: 251113
2015-10-23 17:06:05 +02:00
; X64: [[contbb:\.LBB0_[0-9]+]]: # Block address taken
; X64-NEXT: # %try.cont
[WinEH] Emit prologues and epilogues for funclets Summary: 32-bit funclets have short prologues that allocate enough stack for the largest call in the whole function. The runtime saves CSRs for the funclet. It doesn't restore CSRs after we finally transfer control back to the parent funciton via a CATCHRET, but that's a separate issue. 32-bit funclets also have to adjust the incoming EBP value, which is what llvm.x86.seh.recoverframe does in the old model. 64-bit funclets need to spill CSRs as normal. For simplicity, this just spills the same set of CSRs as the parent function, rather than trying to compute different CSR sets for the parent function and each funclet. 64-bit funclets also allocate enough stack space for the largest outgoing call frame, like 32-bit. Reviewers: majnemer Subscribers: llvm-commits Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12546 llvm-svn: 247092
2015-09-09 00:44:41 +02:00
; X64: addq $48, %rsp
; X64: popq %rbp
[WinEH] Add some support for code generating catchpad We can now run 32-bit programs with empty catch bodies. The next step is to change PEI so that we get funclet prologues and epilogues. llvm-svn: 246235
2015-08-28 01:27:47 +02:00
; X64: retq
[WinEH] Teach AsmPrinter about funclets Summary: Funclets have been turned into functions by the time they hit the object file. Make sure that they have decent names for the symbol table and CFI directives explaining how to reason about their prologues. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13261 llvm-svn: 248824
2015-09-29 22:12:33 +02:00
; X64: "?catch$[[catch1bb:[0-9]+]]@?0?try_catch_catch@4HA":
[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
; X64: LBB0_[[catch1bb]]: # %handler1{{$}}
[WinEH] Emit prologues and epilogues for funclets Summary: 32-bit funclets have short prologues that allocate enough stack for the largest call in the whole function. The runtime saves CSRs for the funclet. It doesn't restore CSRs after we finally transfer control back to the parent funciton via a CATCHRET, but that's a separate issue. 32-bit funclets also have to adjust the incoming EBP value, which is what llvm.x86.seh.recoverframe does in the old model. 64-bit funclets need to spill CSRs as normal. For simplicity, this just spills the same set of CSRs as the parent function, rather than trying to compute different CSR sets for the parent function and each funclet. 64-bit funclets also allocate enough stack space for the largest outgoing call frame, like 32-bit. Reviewers: majnemer Subscribers: llvm-commits Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12546 llvm-svn: 247092
2015-09-09 00:44:41 +02:00
; X64: movq %rdx, 16(%rsp)
; X64: pushq %rbp
[WinEH] Setup RBP correctly in Win64 funclet prologues Previously local variable captures just didn't work in 64-bit. Now we can access local variables more or less correctly. llvm-svn: 248857
2015-09-30 01:32:01 +02:00
; X64: .seh_pushreg 5
[WinEH] Emit prologues and epilogues for funclets Summary: 32-bit funclets have short prologues that allocate enough stack for the largest call in the whole function. The runtime saves CSRs for the funclet. It doesn't restore CSRs after we finally transfer control back to the parent funciton via a CATCHRET, but that's a separate issue. 32-bit funclets also have to adjust the incoming EBP value, which is what llvm.x86.seh.recoverframe does in the old model. 64-bit funclets need to spill CSRs as normal. For simplicity, this just spills the same set of CSRs as the parent function, rather than trying to compute different CSR sets for the parent function and each funclet. 64-bit funclets also allocate enough stack space for the largest outgoing call frame, like 32-bit. Reviewers: majnemer Subscribers: llvm-commits Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12546 llvm-svn: 247092
2015-09-09 00:44:41 +02:00
; X64: subq $32, %rsp
[WinEH] Setup RBP correctly in Win64 funclet prologues Previously local variable captures just didn't work in 64-bit. Now we can access local variables more or less correctly. llvm-svn: 248857
2015-09-30 01:32:01 +02:00
; X64: .seh_stackalloc 32
; X64: leaq 48(%rdx), %rbp
; X64: .seh_endprologue
[WinEH] Emit prologues and epilogues for funclets Summary: 32-bit funclets have short prologues that allocate enough stack for the largest call in the whole function. The runtime saves CSRs for the funclet. It doesn't restore CSRs after we finally transfer control back to the parent funciton via a CATCHRET, but that's a separate issue. 32-bit funclets also have to adjust the incoming EBP value, which is what llvm.x86.seh.recoverframe does in the old model. 64-bit funclets need to spill CSRs as normal. For simplicity, this just spills the same set of CSRs as the parent function, rather than trying to compute different CSR sets for the parent function and each funclet. 64-bit funclets also allocate enough stack space for the largest outgoing call frame, like 32-bit. Reviewers: majnemer Subscribers: llvm-commits Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12546 llvm-svn: 247092
2015-09-09 00:44:41 +02:00
; X64-DAG: leaq -[[local_offs]](%rbp), %rdx
[WinEH] Make UnwindHelp a fixed stack object allocated after XMM CSRs Now the offset of UnwindHelp in our EH tables and the offset that we store to in the prologue agree. llvm-svn: 253059
2015-11-13 20:06:01 +01:00
; X64-DAG: movl -12(%rbp), %ecx
[WinEH] Add some support for code generating catchpad We can now run 32-bit programs with empty catch bodies. The next step is to change PEI so that we get funclet prologues and epilogues. llvm-svn: 246235
2015-08-28 01:27:47 +02:00
; X64: callq f
[WinEH] Ensure that funclets obey the x64 ABI The x64 ABI requires that epilogues do not contain code other than stack adjustments and some limited control flow. However, we'd insert code to initialize the return address after stack adjustments. Instead, insert EAX/RAX with the current value before we create the stack adjustments in the epilogue. llvm-svn: 248839
2015-09-30 00:33:36 +02:00
; X64: leaq [[contbb]](%rip), %rax
; X64-NEXT: addq $32, %rsp
[WinEH] Make funclet return instrs pseudo instrs This makes catchret look more like a branch, and less like a weird use of BlockAddress. It also lets us get away from llvm.x86.seh.restoreframe, which relies on the old parentfpoffset label arithmetic. llvm-svn: 247936
2015-09-17 22:43:47 +02:00
; X64-NEXT: popq %rbp
; X64-NEXT: retq
[WinEH] Add some support for code generating catchpad We can now run 32-bit programs with empty catch bodies. The next step is to change PEI so that we get funclet prologues and epilogues. llvm-svn: 246235
2015-08-28 01:27:47 +02:00
[WinEH] Teach AsmPrinter about funclets Summary: Funclets have been turned into functions by the time they hit the object file. Make sure that they have decent names for the symbol table and CFI directives explaining how to reason about their prologues. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13261 llvm-svn: 248824
2015-09-29 22:12:33 +02:00
; X64: "?catch$[[catch2bb:[0-9]+]]@?0?try_catch_catch@4HA":
[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
; X64: LBB0_[[catch2bb]]: # %handler2{{$}}
[WinEH] Emit prologues and epilogues for funclets Summary: 32-bit funclets have short prologues that allocate enough stack for the largest call in the whole function. The runtime saves CSRs for the funclet. It doesn't restore CSRs after we finally transfer control back to the parent funciton via a CATCHRET, but that's a separate issue. 32-bit funclets also have to adjust the incoming EBP value, which is what llvm.x86.seh.recoverframe does in the old model. 64-bit funclets need to spill CSRs as normal. For simplicity, this just spills the same set of CSRs as the parent function, rather than trying to compute different CSR sets for the parent function and each funclet. 64-bit funclets also allocate enough stack space for the largest outgoing call frame, like 32-bit. Reviewers: majnemer Subscribers: llvm-commits Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12546 llvm-svn: 247092
2015-09-09 00:44:41 +02:00
; X64: movq %rdx, 16(%rsp)
; X64: pushq %rbp
[WinEH] Setup RBP correctly in Win64 funclet prologues Previously local variable captures just didn't work in 64-bit. Now we can access local variables more or less correctly. llvm-svn: 248857
2015-09-30 01:32:01 +02:00
; X64: .seh_pushreg 5
[WinEH] Emit prologues and epilogues for funclets Summary: 32-bit funclets have short prologues that allocate enough stack for the largest call in the whole function. The runtime saves CSRs for the funclet. It doesn't restore CSRs after we finally transfer control back to the parent funciton via a CATCHRET, but that's a separate issue. 32-bit funclets also have to adjust the incoming EBP value, which is what llvm.x86.seh.recoverframe does in the old model. 64-bit funclets need to spill CSRs as normal. For simplicity, this just spills the same set of CSRs as the parent function, rather than trying to compute different CSR sets for the parent function and each funclet. 64-bit funclets also allocate enough stack space for the largest outgoing call frame, like 32-bit. Reviewers: majnemer Subscribers: llvm-commits Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12546 llvm-svn: 247092
2015-09-09 00:44:41 +02:00
; X64: subq $32, %rsp
[WinEH] Setup RBP correctly in Win64 funclet prologues Previously local variable captures just didn't work in 64-bit. Now we can access local variables more or less correctly. llvm-svn: 248857
2015-09-30 01:32:01 +02:00
; X64: .seh_stackalloc 32
; X64: leaq 48(%rdx), %rbp
; X64: .seh_endprologue
[WinEH] Emit prologues and epilogues for funclets Summary: 32-bit funclets have short prologues that allocate enough stack for the largest call in the whole function. The runtime saves CSRs for the funclet. It doesn't restore CSRs after we finally transfer control back to the parent funciton via a CATCHRET, but that's a separate issue. 32-bit funclets also have to adjust the incoming EBP value, which is what llvm.x86.seh.recoverframe does in the old model. 64-bit funclets need to spill CSRs as normal. For simplicity, this just spills the same set of CSRs as the parent function, rather than trying to compute different CSR sets for the parent function and each funclet. 64-bit funclets also allocate enough stack space for the largest outgoing call frame, like 32-bit. Reviewers: majnemer Subscribers: llvm-commits Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12546 llvm-svn: 247092
2015-09-09 00:44:41 +02:00
; X64-DAG: leaq -[[local_offs]](%rbp), %rdx
; X64-DAG: movl $3, %ecx
[WinEH] Add some support for code generating catchpad We can now run 32-bit programs with empty catch bodies. The next step is to change PEI so that we get funclet prologues and epilogues. llvm-svn: 246235
2015-08-28 01:27:47 +02:00
; X64: callq f
[WinEH] Ensure that funclets obey the x64 ABI The x64 ABI requires that epilogues do not contain code other than stack adjustments and some limited control flow. However, we'd insert code to initialize the return address after stack adjustments. Instead, insert EAX/RAX with the current value before we create the stack adjustments in the epilogue. llvm-svn: 248839
2015-09-30 00:33:36 +02:00
; X64: leaq [[contbb]](%rip), %rax
; X64-NEXT: addq $32, %rsp
[WinEH] Make funclet return instrs pseudo instrs This makes catchret look more like a branch, and less like a weird use of BlockAddress. It also lets us get away from llvm.x86.seh.restoreframe, which relies on the old parentfpoffset label arithmetic. llvm-svn: 247936
2015-09-17 22:43:47 +02:00
; X64-NEXT: popq %rbp
; X64-NEXT: retq
[WinEH] Add some support for code generating catchpad We can now run 32-bit programs with empty catch bodies. The next step is to change PEI so that we get funclet prologues and epilogues. llvm-svn: 246235
2015-08-28 01:27:47 +02:00
[WinEH] Fix ip2state table emission with funclets Previously we were hijacking the old LandingPadInfo data structures to communicate our state numbers. Now we don't need that anymore. llvm-svn: 248763
2015-09-29 01:56:30 +02:00
; X64: $cppxdata$try_catch_catch:
; X64-NEXT: .long 429065506
; X64-NEXT: .long 2
; X64-NEXT: .long ($stateUnwindMap$try_catch_catch)@IMGREL
; X64-NEXT: .long 1
; X64-NEXT: .long ($tryMap$try_catch_catch)@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
; X64-NEXT: .long 5
[WinEH] Fix ip2state table emission with funclets Previously we were hijacking the old LandingPadInfo data structures to communicate our state numbers. Now we don't need that anymore. llvm-svn: 248763
2015-09-29 01:56:30 +02:00
; X64-NEXT: .long ($ip2state$try_catch_catch)@IMGREL
[WinEH] Make UnwindHelp a fixed stack object allocated after XMM CSRs Now the offset of UnwindHelp in our EH tables and the offset that we store to in the prologue agree. llvm-svn: 253059
2015-11-13 20:06:01 +01:00
; X64-NEXT: .long 40
[WinEH] Fix ip2state table emission with funclets Previously we were hijacking the old LandingPadInfo data structures to communicate our state numbers. Now we don't need that anymore. llvm-svn: 248763
2015-09-29 01:56:30 +02:00
; X64-NEXT: .long 0
; X64-NEXT: .long 1
; X64: $tryMap$try_catch_catch:
; X64-NEXT: .long 0
; X64-NEXT: .long 0
; X64-NEXT: .long 1
; X64-NEXT: .long 2
; X64-NEXT: .long ($handlerMap$0$try_catch_catch)@IMGREL
[WinEH] Add some support for code generating catchpad We can now run 32-bit programs with empty catch bodies. The next step is to change PEI so that we get funclet prologues and epilogues. llvm-svn: 246235
2015-08-28 01:27:47 +02:00
; X64: $handlerMap$0$try_catch_catch:
[WinEH] Fix ip2state table emission with funclets Previously we were hijacking the old LandingPadInfo data structures to communicate our state numbers. Now we don't need that anymore. llvm-svn: 248763
2015-09-29 01:56:30 +02:00
; X64-NEXT: .long 0
; X64-NEXT: .long "??_R0H@8"@IMGREL
[WinEH] Make UnwindHelp a fixed stack object allocated after XMM CSRs Now the offset of UnwindHelp in our EH tables and the offset that we store to in the prologue agree. llvm-svn: 253059
2015-11-13 20:06:01 +01:00
; X64-NEXT: .long 36
[WinEH] Teach AsmPrinter about funclets Summary: Funclets have been turned into functions by the time they hit the object file. Make sure that they have decent names for the symbol table and CFI directives explaining how to reason about their prologues. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13261 llvm-svn: 248824
2015-09-29 22:12:33 +02:00
; X64-NEXT: .long "?catch$[[catch1bb]]@?0?try_catch_catch@4HA"@IMGREL
[WinEH] Fix ip2state table emission with funclets Previously we were hijacking the old LandingPadInfo data structures to communicate our state numbers. Now we don't need that anymore. llvm-svn: 248763
2015-09-29 01:56:30 +02:00
; X64-NEXT: .long 56
; X64-NEXT: .long 64
; X64-NEXT: .long 0
; X64-NEXT: .long 0
[WinEH] Teach AsmPrinter about funclets Summary: Funclets have been turned into functions by the time they hit the object file. Make sure that they have decent names for the symbol table and CFI directives explaining how to reason about their prologues. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13261 llvm-svn: 248824
2015-09-29 22:12:33 +02:00
; X64-NEXT: .long "?catch$[[catch2bb]]@?0?try_catch_catch@4HA"@IMGREL
[WinEH] Fix ip2state table emission with funclets Previously we were hijacking the old LandingPadInfo data structures to communicate our state numbers. Now we don't need that anymore. llvm-svn: 248763
2015-09-29 01:56:30 +02:00
; X64-NEXT: .long 56
; X64: $ip2state$try_catch_catch:
; X64-NEXT: .long .Lfunc_begin0@IMGREL
; X64-NEXT: .long -1
[WinEH] Fix two minor issues in __CxxFrameHandler3 tables There was an off-by-one bug in ip2state tables which manifested when one call immediately preceded the try-range of the next. The return address of the previous call would appear to be within the try range of the next scope, resulting in extra destructors or catches running. We also computed the wrong offset for catch parameter stack objects. The offset should be from RSP, not from RBP. llvm-svn: 249578
2015-10-07 19:49:32 +02:00
; X64-NEXT: .long .Ltmp0@IMGREL+1
[WinEH] Fix ip2state table emission with funclets Previously we were hijacking the old LandingPadInfo data structures to communicate our state numbers. Now we don't need that anymore. llvm-svn: 248763
2015-09-29 01:56:30 +02:00
; X64-NEXT: .long 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
; X64-NEXT: .long .Ltmp1@IMGREL+1
[WinEH] Fix ip2state table emission with funclets Previously we were hijacking the old LandingPadInfo data structures to communicate our state numbers. Now we don't need that anymore. llvm-svn: 248763
2015-09-29 01:56:30 +02:00
; X64-NEXT: .long -1
[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
; X64-NEXT: .long "?catch$[[catch1bb]]@?0?try_catch_catch@4HA"@IMGREL
; X64-NEXT: .long 1
; X64-NEXT: .long "?catch$[[catch2bb]]@?0?try_catch_catch@4HA"@IMGREL
; X64-NEXT: .long 1
[WinEH] Create a separate MBB for funclet prologues Our current emission strategy is to emit the funclet prologue in the CatchPad's normal destination. This is problematic because intra-funclet control flow to the normal destination is not erroneous and results in us reevaluating the prologue if said control flow is taken. Instead, use the CatchPad's location for the funclet prologue. This correctly models our desire to have unwind edges evaluate the prologue but edges to the normal destination result in typical control flow. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13424 llvm-svn: 249483
2015-10-07 01:31:59 +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
define i32 @branch_to_normal_dest() personality i32 (...)* @__CxxFrameHandler3 {
[WinEH] Create a separate MBB for funclet prologues Our current emission strategy is to emit the funclet prologue in the CatchPad's normal destination. This is problematic because intra-funclet control flow to the normal destination is not erroneous and results in us reevaluating the prologue if said control flow is taken. Instead, use the CatchPad's location for the funclet prologue. This correctly models our desire to have unwind edges evaluate the prologue but edges to the normal destination result in typical control flow. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13424 llvm-svn: 249483
2015-10-07 01:31:59 +02:00
entry:
invoke void @f(i32 1, i32* null)
to label %try.cont unwind label %catch.dispatch
catch.dispatch:
[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
%cs1 = catchswitch within none [label %catch] unwind to caller
[WinEH] Create a separate MBB for funclet prologues Our current emission strategy is to emit the funclet prologue in the CatchPad's normal destination. This is problematic because intra-funclet control flow to the normal destination is not erroneous and results in us reevaluating the prologue if said control flow is taken. Instead, use the CatchPad's location for the funclet prologue. This correctly models our desire to have unwind edges evaluate the prologue but edges to the normal destination result in typical control flow. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13424 llvm-svn: 249483
2015-10-07 01:31:59 +02:00
catch:
[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
%cp1 = catchpad within %cs1 [i8* null, i32 64, i8* null]
br label %loop
loop:
[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
%V = call i1 @getbool() [ "funclet"(token %cp1) ]
[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
br i1 %V, label %loop, label %catch.done
[WinEH] Create a separate MBB for funclet prologues Our current emission strategy is to emit the funclet prologue in the CatchPad's normal destination. This is problematic because intra-funclet control flow to the normal destination is not erroneous and results in us reevaluating the prologue if said control flow is taken. Instead, use the CatchPad's location for the funclet prologue. This correctly models our desire to have unwind edges evaluate the prologue but edges to the normal destination result in typical control flow. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13424 llvm-svn: 249483
2015-10-07 01:31:59 +02:00
catch.done:
[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
catchret from %cp1 to label %try.cont
[WinEH] Create a separate MBB for funclet prologues Our current emission strategy is to emit the funclet prologue in the CatchPad's normal destination. This is problematic because intra-funclet control flow to the normal destination is not erroneous and results in us reevaluating the prologue if said control flow is taken. Instead, use the CatchPad's location for the funclet prologue. This correctly models our desire to have unwind edges evaluate the prologue but edges to the normal destination result in typical control flow. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13424 llvm-svn: 249483
2015-10-07 01:31:59 +02:00
try.cont:
ret i32 0
}
; X86-LABEL: _branch_to_normal_dest:
; X86: calll _f
; X86: [[contbb:LBB1_[0-9]+]]: # %try.cont
; X86: retl
[CodeGen] Mark setjmp/catchret MBBs address-taken Summary: This ensures that BranchFolding (and similar) won't remove these blocks. Also allow AsmPrinter::EmitBasicBlockStart to process MBBs which are address-taken but do not have BBs that are address-taken, since otherwise its call to getAddrLabelSymbolTableToEmit would fail an assertion on such blocks. I audited the other callers of getAddrLabelSymbolTableToEmit (and getAddrLabelSymbol); they all have BBs known to be address-taken except for the call through getAddrLabelSymbol from WinException::create32bitRef; that call is actually now unreachable, so I've removed it and updated the signature of create32bitRef. This fixes PR25168. Reviewers: majnemer, andrew.w.kaylor, rnk Subscribers: pgavlin, llvm-commits Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13774 llvm-svn: 251113
2015-10-23 17:06:05 +02:00
; X86: [[restorebb:LBB1_[0-9]+]]: # Block address taken
; X86-NEXT: # %catch.done
[WinEH] Fix ESP management with 32-bit __CxxFrameHandler3 The C++ EH personality automatically restores ESP from the C++ EH registration node after a catchret. I mistakenly thought it was like SEH, which does not restore ESP. It makes sense for C++ EH to differ from SEH here because SEH does not use funclets for catches, and does not allow catching inside of finally. C++ EH may need to unwind through multiple catch funclets and eventually catchret to some outer funclet. Therefore, the runtime has to keep track of which ESP to use with catchret, rather than having the compiler reload it manually. llvm-svn: 253084
2015-11-13 22:27:00 +01:00
; X86-NEXT: addl $12, %ebp
[WinEH] Create a separate MBB for funclet prologues Our current emission strategy is to emit the funclet prologue in the CatchPad's normal destination. This is problematic because intra-funclet control flow to the normal destination is not erroneous and results in us reevaluating the prologue if said control flow is taken. Instead, use the CatchPad's location for the funclet prologue. This correctly models our desire to have unwind edges evaluate the prologue but edges to the normal destination result in typical control flow. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13424 llvm-svn: 249483
2015-10-07 01:31:59 +02:00
; X86: jmp [[contbb]]
[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
; X86: "?catch$[[catchbb:[0-9]+]]@?0?branch_to_normal_dest@4HA":
; X86: LBB1_[[catchbb]]: # %catch{{$}}
[WinEH] Create a separate MBB for funclet prologues Our current emission strategy is to emit the funclet prologue in the CatchPad's normal destination. This is problematic because intra-funclet control flow to the normal destination is not erroneous and results in us reevaluating the prologue if said control flow is taken. Instead, use the CatchPad's location for the funclet prologue. This correctly models our desire to have unwind edges evaluate the prologue but edges to the normal destination result in typical control flow. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13424 llvm-svn: 249483
2015-10-07 01:31:59 +02:00
; X86: pushl %ebp
; X86: subl $8, %esp
; X86: addl $12, %ebp
[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
; X86: LBB1_[[loopbb:[0-9]+]]: # %loop
; X86: movl $1, -16(%ebp)
[WinEH] Create a separate MBB for funclet prologues Our current emission strategy is to emit the funclet prologue in the CatchPad's normal destination. This is problematic because intra-funclet control flow to the normal destination is not erroneous and results in us reevaluating the prologue if said control flow is taken. Instead, use the CatchPad's location for the funclet prologue. This correctly models our desire to have unwind edges evaluate the prologue but edges to the normal destination result in typical control flow. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13424 llvm-svn: 249483
2015-10-07 01:31:59 +02:00
; X86: calll _getbool
; X86: testb $1, %al
[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
; X86: jne LBB1_[[loopbb]]
[WinEH] Create a separate MBB for funclet prologues Our current emission strategy is to emit the funclet prologue in the CatchPad's normal destination. This is problematic because intra-funclet control flow to the normal destination is not erroneous and results in us reevaluating the prologue if said control flow is taken. Instead, use the CatchPad's location for the funclet prologue. This correctly models our desire to have unwind edges evaluate the prologue but edges to the normal destination result in typical control flow. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13424 llvm-svn: 249483
2015-10-07 01:31:59 +02:00
; X86: # %catch.done
; X86-NEXT: movl $[[restorebb]], %eax
; X86-NEXT: addl $8, %esp
; X86-NEXT: popl %ebp
; X86-NEXT: retl
; X86: L__ehtable$branch_to_normal_dest:
; X86: $handlerMap$0$branch_to_normal_dest:
; X86-NEXT: .long 64
; X86-NEXT: .long 0
; X86-NEXT: .long 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
; X86-NEXT: .long "?catch$[[catchbb]]@?0?branch_to_normal_dest@4HA"
[WinEH] Create a separate MBB for funclet prologues Our current emission strategy is to emit the funclet prologue in the CatchPad's normal destination. This is problematic because intra-funclet control flow to the normal destination is not erroneous and results in us reevaluating the prologue if said control flow is taken. Instead, use the CatchPad's location for the funclet prologue. This correctly models our desire to have unwind edges evaluate the prologue but edges to the normal destination result in typical control flow. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13424 llvm-svn: 249483
2015-10-07 01:31:59 +02:00
; X64-LABEL: branch_to_normal_dest:
; X64: # %entry
; X64: pushq %rbp
; X64: .seh_pushreg 5
; X64: subq $48, %rsp
; X64: .seh_stackalloc 48
; X64: leaq 48(%rsp), %rbp
; X64: .seh_setframe 5, 48
; X64: .seh_endprologue
; X64: .Ltmp[[before_call:[0-9]+]]:
; X64: callq f
; X64: .Ltmp[[after_call:[0-9]+]]:
[CodeGen] Mark setjmp/catchret MBBs address-taken Summary: This ensures that BranchFolding (and similar) won't remove these blocks. Also allow AsmPrinter::EmitBasicBlockStart to process MBBs which are address-taken but do not have BBs that are address-taken, since otherwise its call to getAddrLabelSymbolTableToEmit would fail an assertion on such blocks. I audited the other callers of getAddrLabelSymbolTableToEmit (and getAddrLabelSymbol); they all have BBs known to be address-taken except for the call through getAddrLabelSymbol from WinException::create32bitRef; that call is actually now unreachable, so I've removed it and updated the signature of create32bitRef. This fixes PR25168. Reviewers: majnemer, andrew.w.kaylor, rnk Subscribers: pgavlin, llvm-commits Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13774 llvm-svn: 251113
2015-10-23 17:06:05 +02:00
; X64: [[contbb:\.LBB1_[0-9]+]]: # Block address taken
; X64-NEXT: # %try.cont
[WinEH] Create a separate MBB for funclet prologues Our current emission strategy is to emit the funclet prologue in the CatchPad's normal destination. This is problematic because intra-funclet control flow to the normal destination is not erroneous and results in us reevaluating the prologue if said control flow is taken. Instead, use the CatchPad's location for the funclet prologue. This correctly models our desire to have unwind edges evaluate the prologue but edges to the normal destination result in typical control flow. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13424 llvm-svn: 249483
2015-10-07 01:31:59 +02:00
; X64: addq $48, %rsp
; X64: popq %rbp
; X64: retq
; X64: "?catch$[[catchbb:[0-9]+]]@?0?branch_to_normal_dest@4HA":
[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
; X64: LBB1_[[catchbb]]: # %catch{{$}}
[WinEH] Create a separate MBB for funclet prologues Our current emission strategy is to emit the funclet prologue in the CatchPad's normal destination. This is problematic because intra-funclet control flow to the normal destination is not erroneous and results in us reevaluating the prologue if said control flow is taken. Instead, use the CatchPad's location for the funclet prologue. This correctly models our desire to have unwind edges evaluate the prologue but edges to the normal destination result in typical control flow. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13424 llvm-svn: 249483
2015-10-07 01:31:59 +02:00
; X64: movq %rdx, 16(%rsp)
; X64: pushq %rbp
; X64: .seh_pushreg 5
; X64: subq $32, %rsp
; X64: .seh_stackalloc 32
; X64: leaq 48(%rdx), %rbp
; X64: .seh_endprologue
[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
; X64: .LBB1_[[normal_dest_bb:[0-9]+]]: # %loop
[WinEH] Create a separate MBB for funclet prologues Our current emission strategy is to emit the funclet prologue in the CatchPad's normal destination. This is problematic because intra-funclet control flow to the normal destination is not erroneous and results in us reevaluating the prologue if said control flow is taken. Instead, use the CatchPad's location for the funclet prologue. This correctly models our desire to have unwind edges evaluate the prologue but edges to the normal destination result in typical control flow. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13424 llvm-svn: 249483
2015-10-07 01:31:59 +02:00
; X64: callq getbool
; X64: testb $1, %al
; X64: jne .LBB1_[[normal_dest_bb]]
; X64: # %catch.done
; X64: leaq [[contbb]](%rip), %rax
; X64-NEXT: addq $32, %rsp
; X64-NEXT: popq %rbp
; X64-NEXT: retq
; X64-LABEL: $cppxdata$branch_to_normal_dest:
; X64-NEXT: .long 429065506
; X64-NEXT: .long 2
; X64-NEXT: .long ($stateUnwindMap$branch_to_normal_dest)@IMGREL
; X64-NEXT: .long 1
; X64-NEXT: .long ($tryMap$branch_to_normal_dest)@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
; X64-NEXT: .long 4
[WinEH] Create a separate MBB for funclet prologues Our current emission strategy is to emit the funclet prologue in the CatchPad's normal destination. This is problematic because intra-funclet control flow to the normal destination is not erroneous and results in us reevaluating the prologue if said control flow is taken. Instead, use the CatchPad's location for the funclet prologue. This correctly models our desire to have unwind edges evaluate the prologue but edges to the normal destination result in typical control flow. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13424 llvm-svn: 249483
2015-10-07 01:31:59 +02:00
; X64-NEXT: .long ($ip2state$branch_to_normal_dest)@IMGREL
; X64-NEXT: .long 40
; X64-NEXT: .long 0
; X64-NEXT: .long 1
; X64-LABEL: $stateUnwindMap$branch_to_normal_dest:
; X64-NEXT: .long -1
; X64-NEXT: .long 0
; X64-NEXT: .long -1
; X64-NEXT: .long 0
; X64-LABEL: $tryMap$branch_to_normal_dest:
; X64-NEXT: .long 0
; X64-NEXT: .long 0
; X64-NEXT: .long 1
; X64-NEXT: .long 1
; X64-NEXT: .long ($handlerMap$0$branch_to_normal_dest)@IMGREL
; X64-LABEL: $handlerMap$0$branch_to_normal_dest:
; X64-NEXT: .long 64
; X64-NEXT: .long 0
; X64-NEXT: .long 0
; X64-NEXT: .long "?catch$[[catchbb]]@?0?branch_to_normal_dest@4HA"@IMGREL
; X64-NEXT: .long 56
; X64-LABEL: $ip2state$branch_to_normal_dest:
; X64-NEXT: .long .Lfunc_begin1@IMGREL
; X64-NEXT: .long -1
[WinEH] Fix two minor issues in __CxxFrameHandler3 tables There was an off-by-one bug in ip2state tables which manifested when one call immediately preceded the try-range of the next. The return address of the previous call would appear to be within the try range of the next scope, resulting in extra destructors or catches running. We also computed the wrong offset for catch parameter stack objects. The offset should be from RSP, not from RBP. llvm-svn: 249578
2015-10-07 19:49:32 +02:00
; X64-NEXT: .long .Ltmp[[before_call]]@IMGREL+1
[WinEH] Create a separate MBB for funclet prologues Our current emission strategy is to emit the funclet prologue in the CatchPad's normal destination. This is problematic because intra-funclet control flow to the normal destination is not erroneous and results in us reevaluating the prologue if said control flow is taken. Instead, use the CatchPad's location for the funclet prologue. This correctly models our desire to have unwind edges evaluate the prologue but edges to the normal destination result in typical control flow. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13424 llvm-svn: 249483
2015-10-07 01:31:59 +02:00
; X64-NEXT: .long 0
; X64-NEXT: .long .Ltmp[[after_call]]@IMGREL+1
; X64-NEXT: .long -1
[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
; X64-NEXT: .long "?catch$[[catchbb]]@?0?branch_to_normal_dest@4HA"@IMGREL
; X64-NEXT: .long 1
Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink