RPCS3/llvm-mirror
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/RPCS3/llvm-mirror.git synced 2024-10-22 12:33:33 +02:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Wiki Activity
7b31b4883c
llvm-mirror/test/CodeGen/X86/win32-eh-states.ll

208 lines
6.3 KiB
LLVM
Raw Normal View History

[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
; RUN: llc -mtriple=i686-pc-windows-msvc < %s | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=X86
; RUN: llc -mtriple=x86_64-pc-windows-msvc < %s | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=X64
[WinEH] Start inserting state number stores for C++ EH This moves all the state numbering code for C++ EH to WinEHPrepare so that we can call it from the X86 state numbering IR pass that runs before isel. Now we just call the same state numbering machinery and insert a bunch of stores. It also populates MachineModuleInfo with information about the current function. llvm-svn: 238514
2015-05-29 00:00:24 +02:00
; Based on this source:
; extern "C" void may_throw(int);
; void f() {
; try {
; may_throw(1);
; try {
; may_throw(2);
; } catch (int) {
; may_throw(3);
; }
; } catch (int) {
; may_throw(4);
; }
; }
%rtti.TypeDescriptor2 = type { i8**, i8*, [3 x i8] }
%eh.CatchHandlerType = type { i32, i8* }
declare void @may_throw(i32)
declare i32 @__CxxFrameHandler3(...)
declare void @llvm.eh.begincatch(i8*, i8*)
declare void @llvm.eh.endcatch()
declare i32 @llvm.eh.typeid.for(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
@llvm.eh.handlertype.H.0 = private unnamed_addr constant %eh.CatchHandlerType { i32 0, i8* bitcast (%rtti.TypeDescriptor2* @"\01??_R0H@8" to i8*) }, section "llvm.metadata"
Move the personality function from LandingPadInst to Function The personality routine currently lives in the LandingPadInst. This isn't desirable because: - All LandingPadInsts in the same function must have the same personality routine. This means that each LandingPadInst beyond the first has an operand which produces no additional information. - There is ongoing work to introduce EH IR constructs other than LandingPadInst. Moving the personality routine off of any one particular Instruction and onto the parent function seems a lot better than have N different places a personality function can sneak onto an exceptional function. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D10429 llvm-svn: 239940
2015-06-17 22:52:32 +02:00
define void @f() #0 personality i8* bitcast (i32 (...)* @__CxxFrameHandler3 to i8*) {
[WinEH] Start inserting state number stores for C++ EH This moves all the state numbering code for C++ EH to WinEHPrepare so that we can call it from the X86 state numbering IR pass that runs before isel. Now we just call the same state numbering machinery and insert a bunch of stores. It also populates MachineModuleInfo with information about the current function. llvm-svn: 238514
2015-05-29 00:00:24 +02:00
entry:
invoke void @may_throw(i32 1)
[WinEH] Rip out the landingpad-based C++ EH state numbering code It never really worked, and the new code is working better every day. llvm-svn: 247860
2015-09-17 00:14:46 +02:00
to label %invoke.cont unwind label %lpad.1
[WinEH] Start inserting state number stores for C++ EH This moves all the state numbering code for C++ EH to WinEHPrepare so that we can call it from the X86 state numbering IR pass that runs before isel. Now we just call the same state numbering machinery and insert a bunch of stores. It also populates MachineModuleInfo with information about the current function. llvm-svn: 238514
2015-05-29 00:00:24 +02:00
invoke.cont: ; preds = %entry
invoke void @may_throw(i32 2)
[WinEH] Rip out the landingpad-based C++ EH state numbering code It never really worked, and the new code is working better every day. llvm-svn: 247860
2015-09-17 00:14:46 +02:00
to label %try.cont.9 unwind label %lpad
[WinEH] Start inserting state number stores for C++ EH This moves all the state numbering code for C++ EH to WinEHPrepare so that we can call it from the X86 state numbering IR pass that runs before isel. Now we just call the same state numbering machinery and insert a bunch of stores. It also populates MachineModuleInfo with information about the current function. llvm-svn: 238514
2015-05-29 00:00:24 +02:00
try.cont.9: ; preds = %invoke.cont.3, %invoke.cont, %catch.7
ret void
lpad: ; preds = %catch, %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
%cs1 = catchswitch within none [label %catch] unwind label %lpad.1
[WinEH] Start inserting state number stores for C++ EH This moves all the state numbering code for C++ EH to WinEHPrepare so that we can call it from the X86 state numbering IR pass that runs before isel. Now we just call the same state numbering machinery and insert a bunch of stores. It also populates MachineModuleInfo with information about the current function. llvm-svn: 238514
2015-05-29 00:00:24 +02:00
catch: ; preds = %lpad.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
%p1 = catchpad within %cs1 [%rtti.TypeDescriptor2* @"\01??_R0H@8", i32 0, 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
invoke void @may_throw(i32 3) [ "funclet"(token %p1) ]
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies: - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM experts. - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes. This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation. - catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward. It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other funclets. - The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a representation which forbade them upfront. Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following: - Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable. - Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model the constraints of funclet oriented EH. - Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume the token produced by the funclet which contains them. - Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred implicitly using coloring information. N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a look to make sure the results are reasonable. Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139 llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 06:38:55 +01:00
to label %invoke.cont.3 unwind label %lpad.1
[WinEH] Start inserting state number stores for C++ EH This moves all the state numbering code for C++ EH to WinEHPrepare so that we can call it from the X86 state numbering IR pass that runs before isel. Now we just call the same state numbering machinery and insert a bunch of stores. It also populates MachineModuleInfo with information about the current function. llvm-svn: 238514
2015-05-29 00:00:24 +02:00
invoke.cont.3: ; preds = %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
catchret from %p1 to label %try.cont.9
[WinEH] Rip out the landingpad-based C++ EH state numbering code It never really worked, and the new code is working better every day. llvm-svn: 247860
2015-09-17 00:14:46 +02:00
lpad.1: ; preds = %invoke.cont
[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
%cs2 = catchswitch within none [label %catch.7] unwind to caller
[WinEH] Rip out the landingpad-based C++ EH state numbering code It never really worked, and the new code is working better every day. llvm-svn: 247860
2015-09-17 00:14:46 +02:00
catch.7:
[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
%p2 = catchpad within %cs2 [%rtti.TypeDescriptor2* @"\01??_R0H@8", i32 0, 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 @may_throw(i32 4) [ "funclet"(token %p2) ]
[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 %p2 to label %try.cont.9
}
; X86-LABEL: _f:
; X86: movl $-1, [[state:[-0-9]+]](%ebp)
; X86: movl $___ehhandler$f, {{.*}}
;
; X86: movl $0, [[state]](%ebp)
[X86] Enable call frame optimization ("mov to push") not only for optsize (PR26325) The size savings are significant, and from what I can tell, both ICC and GCC do this. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18573 llvm-svn: 264966
2016-03-31 01:38:01 +02:00
; X86: pushl $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
; X86: calll _may_throw
;
; X86: movl $1, [[state]](%ebp)
[X86] Enable call frame optimization ("mov to push") not only for optsize (PR26325) The size savings are significant, and from what I can tell, both ICC and GCC do this. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18573 llvm-svn: 264966
2016-03-31 01:38:01 +02:00
; X86: pushl $2
[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: calll _may_throw
;
; X86: movl $2, [[state]](%ebp)
[X86] Enable call frame optimization ("mov to push") not only for optsize (PR26325) The size savings are significant, and from what I can tell, both ICC and GCC do this. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18573 llvm-svn: 264966
2016-03-31 01:38:01 +02:00
; X86: pushl $3
[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: calll _may_throw
;
; X86: movl $3, [[state]](%ebp)
[X86] Enable call frame optimization ("mov to push") not only for optsize (PR26325) The size savings are significant, and from what I can tell, both ICC and GCC do this. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18573 llvm-svn: 264966
2016-03-31 01:38:01 +02:00
; X86: pushl $4
[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: calll _may_throw
; X64-LABEL: f:
; X64-LABEL: $ip2state$f:
; X64-NEXT: .long .Lfunc_begin0@IMGREL
; X64-NEXT: .long -1
; X64-NEXT: .long .Ltmp{{.*}}@IMGREL+1
; X64-NEXT: .long 0
; X64-NEXT: .long .Ltmp{{.*}}@IMGREL+1
; X64-NEXT: .long 1
; X64-NEXT: .long .Ltmp{{.*}}@IMGREL+1
; X64-NEXT: .long -1
; X64-NEXT: .long "?catch${{.*}}@?0?f@4HA"@IMGREL
; X64-NEXT: .long 2
; X64-NEXT: .long "?catch${{.*}}@?0?f@4HA"@IMGREL
; X64-NEXT: .long 3
; Based on this source:
; extern "C" void may_throw(int);
; struct S { ~S(); };
; void g() {
; S x;
; try {
; may_throw(-1);
; } catch (...) {
; may_throw(0);
; {
; S y;
; may_throw(1);
; }
; may_throw(2);
; }
; }
[WinEH] Rip out the landingpad-based C++ EH state numbering code It never really worked, and the new code is working better every day. llvm-svn: 247860
2015-09-17 00:14:46 +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
%struct.S = type { i8 }
declare void @"\01??1S@@QEAA@XZ"(%struct.S*)
[WinEH] Start inserting state number stores for C++ EH This moves all the state numbering code for C++ EH to WinEHPrepare so that we can call it from the X86 state numbering IR pass that runs before isel. Now we just call the same state numbering machinery and insert a bunch of stores. It also populates MachineModuleInfo with information about the current function. llvm-svn: 238514
2015-05-29 00:00:24 +02:00
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies: - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM experts. - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes. This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation. - catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward. It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other funclets. - The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a representation which forbade them upfront. Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following: - Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable. - Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model the constraints of funclet oriented EH. - Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume the token produced by the funclet which contains them. - Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred implicitly using coloring information. N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a look to make sure the results are reasonable. Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139 llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 06:38:55 +01:00
define void @g() personality i32 (...)* @__CxxFrameHandler3 {
entry:
%x = alloca %struct.S, align 1
%y = alloca %struct.S, align 1
invoke void @may_throw(i32 -1)
to label %unreachable unwind label %catch.dispatch
catch.dispatch: ; preds = %entry
%0 = catchswitch within none [label %catch] unwind label %ehcleanup5
catch: ; preds = %catch.dispatch
%1 = catchpad within %0 [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
invoke void @may_throw(i32 0) [ "funclet"(token %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
to label %invoke.cont unwind label %ehcleanup5
invoke.cont: ; preds = %catch
[WinEH] Use operand bundles to describe call sites SimplifyCFG allows tail merging with code which terminates in unreachable which, in turn, makes it possible for an invoke to end up in a funclet which it was not originally part of. Using operand bundles on invokes allows us to determine whether or not an invoke was part of a funclet in the source program. Furthermore, it allows us to unambiguously answer questions about the legality of inlining into call sites which the personality may have trouble with. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15517 llvm-svn: 255674
2015-12-15 22:27:27 +01:00
invoke void @may_throw(i32 1) [ "funclet"(token %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
to label %invoke.cont2 unwind label %ehcleanup
invoke.cont2: ; preds = %invoke.cont
[WinEH] Use operand bundles to describe call sites SimplifyCFG allows tail merging with code which terminates in unreachable which, in turn, makes it possible for an invoke to end up in a funclet which it was not originally part of. Using operand bundles on invokes allows us to determine whether or not an invoke was part of a funclet in the source program. Furthermore, it allows us to unambiguously answer questions about the legality of inlining into call sites which the personality may have trouble with. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15517 llvm-svn: 255674
2015-12-15 22:27:27 +01:00
invoke void @"\01??1S@@QEAA@XZ"(%struct.S* nonnull %y) [ "funclet"(token %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
to label %invoke.cont3 unwind label %ehcleanup5
invoke.cont3: ; preds = %invoke.cont2
[WinEH] Use operand bundles to describe call sites SimplifyCFG allows tail merging with code which terminates in unreachable which, in turn, makes it possible for an invoke to end up in a funclet which it was not originally part of. Using operand bundles on invokes allows us to determine whether or not an invoke was part of a funclet in the source program. Furthermore, it allows us to unambiguously answer questions about the legality of inlining into call sites which the personality may have trouble with. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15517 llvm-svn: 255674
2015-12-15 22:27:27 +01:00
invoke void @may_throw(i32 2) [ "funclet"(token %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
to label %invoke.cont4 unwind label %ehcleanup5
invoke.cont4: ; preds = %invoke.cont3
catchret from %1 to label %try.cont
try.cont: ; preds = %invoke.cont4
call void @"\01??1S@@QEAA@XZ"(%struct.S* nonnull %x)
ret void
ehcleanup: ; preds = %invoke.cont
%2 = cleanuppad within %1 []
[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 @"\01??1S@@QEAA@XZ"(%struct.S* nonnull %y) [ "funclet"(token %2) ]
[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
cleanupret from %2 unwind label %ehcleanup5
ehcleanup5: ; preds = %invoke.cont2, %invoke.cont3, %ehcleanup, %catch, %catch.dispatch
%3 = cleanuppad within none []
[WinEH] Use operand bundles to describe call sites SimplifyCFG allows tail merging with code which terminates in unreachable which, in turn, makes it possible for an invoke to end up in a funclet which it was not originally part of. Using operand bundles on invokes allows us to determine whether or not an invoke was part of a funclet in the source program. Furthermore, it allows us to unambiguously answer questions about the legality of inlining into call sites which the personality may have trouble with. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15517 llvm-svn: 255674
2015-12-15 22:27:27 +01:00
call void @"\01??1S@@QEAA@XZ"(%struct.S* nonnull %x) [ "funclet"(token %3) ]
[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
cleanupret from %3 unwind to caller
unreachable: ; preds = %entry
unreachable
[WinEH] Start inserting state number stores for C++ EH This moves all the state numbering code for C++ EH to WinEHPrepare so that we can call it from the X86 state numbering IR pass that runs before isel. Now we just call the same state numbering machinery and insert a bunch of stores. It also populates MachineModuleInfo with information about the current function. llvm-svn: 238514
2015-05-29 00:00:24 +02:00
}
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies: - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM experts. - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes. This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation. - catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward. It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other funclets. - The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a representation which forbade them upfront. Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following: - Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable. - Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model the constraints of funclet oriented EH. - Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume the token produced by the funclet which contains them. - Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred implicitly using coloring information. N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a look to make sure the results are reasonable. Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139 llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 06:38:55 +01:00
; X86-LABEL: _g:
; X86: movl $-1, [[state:[-0-9]+]](%ebp)
; X86: movl $___ehhandler$g, {{.*}}
[WinEH] Start inserting state number stores for C++ EH This moves all the state numbering code for C++ EH to WinEHPrepare so that we can call it from the X86 state numbering IR pass that runs before isel. Now we just call the same state numbering machinery and insert a bunch of stores. It also populates MachineModuleInfo with information about the current function. llvm-svn: 238514
2015-05-29 00:00:24 +02:00
;
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies: - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM experts. - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes. This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation. - catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward. It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other funclets. - The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a representation which forbade them upfront. Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following: - Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable. - Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model the constraints of funclet oriented EH. - Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume the token produced by the funclet which contains them. - Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred implicitly using coloring information. N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a look to make sure the results are reasonable. Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139 llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 06:38:55 +01:00
; X86: movl $1, [[state]](%ebp)
[X86] Enable call frame optimization ("mov to push") not only for optsize (PR26325) The size savings are significant, and from what I can tell, both ICC and GCC do this. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18573 llvm-svn: 264966
2016-03-31 01:38:01 +02:00
; X86: pushl $-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
; X86: calll _may_throw
[WinEH] Start inserting state number stores for C++ EH This moves all the state numbering code for C++ EH to WinEHPrepare so that we can call it from the X86 state numbering IR pass that runs before isel. Now we just call the same state numbering machinery and insert a bunch of stores. It also populates MachineModuleInfo with information about the current function. llvm-svn: 238514
2015-05-29 00:00:24 +02:00
;
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies: - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM experts. - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes. This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation. - catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward. It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other funclets. - The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a representation which forbade them upfront. Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following: - Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable. - Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model the constraints of funclet oriented EH. - Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume the token produced by the funclet which contains them. - Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred implicitly using coloring information. N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a look to make sure the results are reasonable. Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139 llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 06:38:55 +01:00
; X86: movl $2, [[state]](%ebp)
[X86] Enable call frame optimization ("mov to push") not only for optsize (PR26325) The size savings are significant, and from what I can tell, both ICC and GCC do this. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18573 llvm-svn: 264966
2016-03-31 01:38:01 +02:00
; X86: pushl $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: calll _may_throw
[WinEH] Rip out the landingpad-based C++ EH state numbering code It never really worked, and the new code is working better every day. llvm-svn: 247860
2015-09-17 00:14:46 +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
; X86: movl $3, [[state]](%ebp)
[X86] Enable call frame optimization ("mov to push") not only for optsize (PR26325) The size savings are significant, and from what I can tell, both ICC and GCC do this. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18573 llvm-svn: 264966
2016-03-31 01:38:01 +02:00
; X86: pushl $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
; X86: calll _may_throw
[WinEH] Rip out the landingpad-based C++ EH state numbering code It never really worked, and the new code is working better every day. llvm-svn: 247860
2015-09-17 00:14:46 +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
; X86: movl $2, [[state]](%ebp)
[X86] Enable call frame optimization ("mov to push") not only for optsize (PR26325) The size savings are significant, and from what I can tell, both ICC and GCC do this. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18573 llvm-svn: 264966
2016-03-31 01:38:01 +02:00
; X86: pushl $2
[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: calll _may_throw
; X64-LABEL: g:
; X64-LABEL: $ip2state$g:
; X64-NEXT: .long .Lfunc_begin1@IMGREL
; X64-NEXT: .long -1
; X64-NEXT: .long .Ltmp{{.*}}@IMGREL+1
; X64-NEXT: .long 1
; X64-NEXT: .long .Ltmp{{.*}}@IMGREL+1
; X64-NEXT: .long -1
; X64-NEXT: .long "?catch${{.*}}@?0?g@4HA"@IMGREL
; X64-NEXT: .long 2
; X64-NEXT: .long .Ltmp{{.*}}@IMGREL+1
; X64-NEXT: .long 3
; X64-NEXT: .long .Ltmp{{.*}}@IMGREL+1
; X64-NEXT: .long 2
; X86: .safeseh ___ehhandler$f
; X86: .safeseh ___ehhandler$g
Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink