| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Also improve assembler parser register validation for .seh_ directives.
This requires moving X86-specific seh directive handling into the x86
backend, which addresses some assembler FIXMEs.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D66625
llvm-svn: 370533
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
locality and code size from SP/FP offset encoding.
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15393
llvm-svn: 260917
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
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
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Now the offset of UnwindHelp in our EH tables and the offset that we
store to in the prologue agree.
llvm-svn: 253059
|
|
|
We already had a test for this for 32-bit SEH catchpads, but those don't
actually create funclets. We had a bug that only appeared in funclet
prologues, where we would establish EBP and ESI as our FP and BP, and
then downstream prologue code would overwrite them.
While I was at it, I fixed Win64+funclets+stackrealign. This issue
doesn't come up as often there due to the ABI requring 16 byte stack
alignment, but now we can rest easy that AVX and WinEH will work well
together =P.
llvm-svn: 252210
|
