maxjhandsome
/
llvm-project
forked from OSchip/llvm-project
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Releases Wiki Activity
llvm-project/llvm/test/CodeGen/X86/win-catchpad-csrs.ll

269 lines
6.7 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
2015-11-10 05:04:00 +08:00
; 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] 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 06:44:41 +08:00
%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
declare i32 @getint()
declare void @useints(...)
declare void @f(i32 %p)
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 13:38:55 +08:00
define i32 @try_catch_catch() personality i32 (...)* @__CxxFrameHandler3 {
[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 06:44:41 +08:00
entry:
%a = call i32 @getint()
%b = call i32 @getint()
%c = call i32 @getint()
%d = call i32 @getint()
call void (...) @useints(i32 %a, i32 %b, i32 %c, i32 %d)
invoke void @f(i32 1)
to label %try.cont unwind label %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 13:38:55 +08:00
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 06:44:41 +08:00
ret i32 0
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies: - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM experts. - catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes. This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation. - catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward. It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other funclets. - The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a representation which forbade them upfront. Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following: - Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable. - Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model the constraints of funclet oriented EH. - Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume the token produced by the funclet which contains them. - Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred implicitly using coloring information. N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a look to make sure the results are reasonable. Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139 llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
catch.dispatch:
%cs = catchswitch within none [label %handler1] unwind to caller
handler1:
%h1 = catchpad within %cs [%rtti.TypeDescriptor2* @"\01??_R0H@8", i32 0, i8* null]
call void @f(i32 2)
catchret from %h1 to label %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 06:44:41 +08:00
}
; X86-LABEL: _try_catch_catch:
; X86: pushl %ebp
; X86: movl %esp, %ebp
; X86: pushl %ebx
; X86: pushl %edi
; X86: pushl %esi
; X86: subl ${{[0-9]+}}, %esp
; X86: calll _getint
; X86: calll _getint
; X86: calll _getint
; X86: calll _getint
; X86: calll _useints
; X86: movl $0, -{{[0-9]+}}(%ebp)
; X86: movl $1, (%esp)
; 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
2015-09-18 04:43:47 +08:00
; X86: [[contbb:LBB0_[0-9]+]]: # %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 06:44:41 +08:00
; X86: popl %esi
; X86: popl %edi
; X86: popl %ebx
; X86: popl %ebp
; X86: retl
[WinEH] Fix tests broken by funclet-layout llvm-svn: 247944
2015-09-18 05:11:12 +08:00
; X86: [[restorebb:LBB0_[0-9]+]]:
; X86: addl $12, %ebp
; X86: jmp [[contbb]]
[WinEH] Teach AsmPrinter about funclets Summary: Funclets have been turned into functions by the time they hit the object file. Make sure that they have decent names for the symbol table and CFI directives explaining how to reason about their prologues. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13261 llvm-svn: 248824
2015-09-30 04:12:33 +08:00
; X86: "?catch$[[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 13:38:55 +08:00
; 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 06:00:02 +08:00
; 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 06:44:41 +08:00
; X86-NOT: pushl
; X86: subl $16, %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 07:32:01 +08:00
; X86: addl $12, %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 06:44:41 +08:00
; X86: movl $1, -{{[0-9]+}}(%ebp)
; X86: movl $2, (%esp)
; 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 06:33:36 +08:00
; X86: movl $[[restorebb]], %eax
; X86-NEXT: addl $16, %esp
[WinEH] Push and pop EBP for 32-bit funclets The Win32 EH runtime caller does not preserve EBP, even though it does preserve the CSRs (EBX, ESI, EDI) for us. The result was that each finally funclet call would leave the frame pointer off by 12 bytes. llvm-svn: 247348
2015-09-11 06:00:02 +08:00
; X86-NEXT: popl %ebp
[WinEH] Emit prologues and epilogues for funclets Summary: 32-bit funclets have short prologues that allocate enough stack for the largest call in the whole function. The runtime saves CSRs for the funclet. It doesn't restore CSRs after we finally transfer control back to the parent funciton via a CATCHRET, but that's a separate issue. 32-bit funclets also have to adjust the incoming EBP value, which is what llvm.x86.seh.recoverframe does in the old model. 64-bit funclets need to spill CSRs as normal. For simplicity, this just spills the same set of CSRs as the parent function, rather than trying to compute different CSR sets for the parent function and each funclet. 64-bit funclets also allocate enough stack space for the largest outgoing call frame, like 32-bit. Reviewers: majnemer Subscribers: llvm-commits Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12546 llvm-svn: 247092
2015-09-09 06:44:41 +08:00
; X86-NEXT: retl
; X86: L__ehtable$try_catch_catch:
; X86: $handlerMap$0$try_catch_catch:
; X86: .long 0
; X86: .long "??_R0H@8"
; X86: .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
2015-09-30 04:12:33 +08:00
; X86: .long "?catch$[[catch1bb]]@?0?try_catch_catch@4HA"
[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 06:44:41 +08:00
; X64-LABEL: try_catch_catch:
; X64: pushq %rbp
; X64: .seh_pushreg 5
; X64: pushq %rsi
; X64: .seh_pushreg 6
; X64: pushq %rdi
; X64: .seh_pushreg 7
; X64: pushq %rbx
; X64: .seh_pushreg 3
; X64: subq $40, %rsp
; X64: .seh_stackalloc 40
; X64: leaq 32(%rsp), %rbp
; X64: .seh_setframe 5, 32
[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 07:32:01 +08:00
; 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
2015-11-14 03:06:01 +08:00
; X64: movq $-2, (%rbp)
[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 06:44:41 +08:00
; X64: callq getint
; X64: callq getint
; X64: callq getint
; X64: callq getint
; X64: callq useints
; X64: movl $1, %ecx
; 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 23:06:05 +08:00
; 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 06:44:41 +08:00
; X64: addq $40, %rsp
; X64: popq %rbp
; X64: retq
[WinEH] Teach AsmPrinter about funclets Summary: Funclets have been turned into functions by the time they hit the object file. Make sure that they have decent names for the symbol table and CFI directives explaining how to reason about their prologues. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D13261 llvm-svn: 248824
2015-09-30 04:12:33 +08:00
; X64: "?catch$[[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 13:38:55 +08:00
; 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 06:44:41 +08:00
; 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 07:32:01 +08:00
; X64: .seh_pushreg 5
[WinEH] Insert the catchpad return before CSR restoration x64 catchpads use rax to inform the unwinder where control should go next. However, we must initialize rax before the epilogue sequence so as to not perturb the unwinder. llvm-svn: 249910
2015-10-10 06:18:45 +08:00
; X64: pushq %rsi
; X64: .seh_pushreg 6
[WinEH] Fix stack alignment in funclets and ParentFrameOffset calculation Our previous value of "16 + 8 + MaxCallFrameSize" for ParentFrameOffset is incorrect when CSRs are involved. We were supposed to have a test case to catch this, but it wasn't very rigorous. The main effect here is that calling _CxxThrowException inside a catchpad doesn't immediately crash on MOVAPS when you have an odd number of CSRs. llvm-svn: 250583
2015-10-17 07:43:27 +08:00
; X64: pushq %rdi
; X64: .seh_pushreg 7
; X64: pushq %rbx
; X64: .seh_pushreg 3
; X64: subq $40, %rsp
; X64: .seh_stackalloc 40
[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 07:32:01 +08:00
; X64: leaq 32(%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 06:44:41 +08:00
; X64: movl $2, %ecx
; 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 06:33:36 +08:00
; X64: leaq [[contbb]](%rip), %rax
[WinEH] Fix stack alignment in funclets and ParentFrameOffset calculation Our previous value of "16 + 8 + MaxCallFrameSize" for ParentFrameOffset is incorrect when CSRs are involved. We were supposed to have a test case to catch this, but it wasn't very rigorous. The main effect here is that calling _CxxThrowException inside a catchpad doesn't immediately crash on MOVAPS when you have an odd number of CSRs. llvm-svn: 250583
2015-10-17 07:43:27 +08:00
; X64: addq $40, %rsp
; X64: popq %rbx
; X64: popq %rdi
[WinEH] Insert the catchpad return before CSR restoration x64 catchpads use rax to inform the unwinder where control should go next. However, we must initialize rax before the epilogue sequence so as to not perturb the unwinder. llvm-svn: 249910
2015-10-10 06:18:45 +08:00
; X64: popq %rsi
[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 06:44:41 +08:00
; X64: popq %rbp
; X64: retq
; X64: $handlerMap$0$try_catch_catch:
; X64: .long 0
; X64: .long "??_R0H@8"@IMGREL
; X64: .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
2015-09-30 04:12:33 +08:00
; X64: .long "?catch$[[catch1bb]]@?0?try_catch_catch@4HA"@IMGREL
[WinEH] Fix stack alignment in funclets and ParentFrameOffset calculation Our previous value of "16 + 8 + MaxCallFrameSize" for ParentFrameOffset is incorrect when CSRs are involved. We were supposed to have a test case to catch this, but it wasn't very rigorous. The main effect here is that calling _CxxThrowException inside a catchpad doesn't immediately crash on MOVAPS when you have an odd number of CSRs. llvm-svn: 250583
2015-10-17 07:43:27 +08:00
; X64: .long 88
define i32 @try_one_csr() personality i32 (...)* @__CxxFrameHandler3 {
entry:
%a = call i32 @getint()
%b = call i32 @getint()
call void (...) @useints(i32 %a)
invoke void @f(i32 1)
to label %try.cont unwind label %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 13:38:55 +08:00
catch.dispatch:
%cs = catchswitch within none [label %handler1] unwind to caller
[WinEH] Fix stack alignment in funclets and ParentFrameOffset calculation Our previous value of "16 + 8 + MaxCallFrameSize" for ParentFrameOffset is incorrect when CSRs are involved. We were supposed to have a test case to catch this, but it wasn't very rigorous. The main effect here is that calling _CxxThrowException inside a catchpad doesn't immediately crash on MOVAPS when you have an odd number of CSRs. llvm-svn: 250583
2015-10-17 07:43:27 +08:00
[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 13:38:55 +08:00
handler1:
%0 = catchpad within %cs [%rtti.TypeDescriptor2* @"\01??_R0H@8", i32 0, i8* null]
catchret from %0 to label %try.cont
[WinEH] Fix stack alignment in funclets and ParentFrameOffset calculation Our previous value of "16 + 8 + MaxCallFrameSize" for ParentFrameOffset is incorrect when CSRs are involved. We were supposed to have a test case to catch this, but it wasn't very rigorous. The main effect here is that calling _CxxThrowException inside a catchpad doesn't immediately crash on MOVAPS when you have an odd number of CSRs. llvm-svn: 250583
2015-10-17 07:43:27 +08:00
[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 13:38:55 +08:00
try.cont:
[WinEH] Fix stack alignment in funclets and ParentFrameOffset calculation Our previous value of "16 + 8 + MaxCallFrameSize" for ParentFrameOffset is incorrect when CSRs are involved. We were supposed to have a test case to catch this, but it wasn't very rigorous. The main effect here is that calling _CxxThrowException inside a catchpad doesn't immediately crash on MOVAPS when you have an odd number of CSRs. llvm-svn: 250583
2015-10-17 07:43:27 +08:00
ret i32 0
}
; X64-LABEL: try_one_csr:
; X64: pushq %rbp
; X64: .seh_pushreg 5
; X64: pushq %rsi
; X64: .seh_pushreg 6
; X64-NOT: pushq
; X64: subq $40, %rsp
; X64: .seh_stackalloc 40
; X64: leaq 32(%rsp), %rbp
; X64: .seh_setframe 5, 32
; X64: .seh_endprologue
; X64: callq getint
; X64: callq getint
; X64: callq useints
; X64: movl $1, %ecx
; 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 23:06:05 +08:00
; X64: [[contbb:\.LBB1_[0-9]+]]: # Block address taken
; X64-NEXT: # %try.cont
[WinEH] Fix stack alignment in funclets and ParentFrameOffset calculation Our previous value of "16 + 8 + MaxCallFrameSize" for ParentFrameOffset is incorrect when CSRs are involved. We were supposed to have a test case to catch this, but it wasn't very rigorous. The main effect here is that calling _CxxThrowException inside a catchpad doesn't immediately crash on MOVAPS when you have an odd number of CSRs. llvm-svn: 250583
2015-10-17 07:43:27 +08:00
; X64: addq $40, %rsp
; X64-NOT: popq
; X64: popq %rsi
; X64: popq %rbp
; X64: retq
; X64: "?catch$[[catch1bb:[0-9]+]]@?0?try_one_csr@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 13:38:55 +08:00
; X64: LBB1_[[catch1bb]]: # %handler1{{$}}
[WinEH] Fix stack alignment in funclets and ParentFrameOffset calculation Our previous value of "16 + 8 + MaxCallFrameSize" for ParentFrameOffset is incorrect when CSRs are involved. We were supposed to have a test case to catch this, but it wasn't very rigorous. The main effect here is that calling _CxxThrowException inside a catchpad doesn't immediately crash on MOVAPS when you have an odd number of CSRs. llvm-svn: 250583
2015-10-17 07:43:27 +08:00
; X64: movq %rdx, 16(%rsp)
; X64: pushq %rbp
; X64: .seh_pushreg 5
; X64: pushq %rsi
; X64: .seh_pushreg 6
; X64: subq $40, %rsp
; X64: .seh_stackalloc 40
; X64: leaq 32(%rdx), %rbp
; X64: .seh_endprologue
; X64: leaq [[contbb]](%rip), %rax
; X64: addq $40, %rsp
; X64: popq %rsi
; X64: popq %rbp
; X64: retq
; X64: $handlerMap$0$try_one_csr:
; X64: .long 0
; X64: .long "??_R0H@8"@IMGREL
; X64: .long 0
; X64: .long "?catch$[[catch1bb]]@?0?try_one_csr@4HA"@IMGREL
; X64: .long 72
define i32 @try_no_csr() personality i32 (...)* @__CxxFrameHandler3 {
entry:
invoke void @f(i32 1)
to label %try.cont unwind label %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 13:38:55 +08:00
catch.dispatch:
%cs = catchswitch within none [label %handler1] unwind to caller
[WinEH] Fix stack alignment in funclets and ParentFrameOffset calculation Our previous value of "16 + 8 + MaxCallFrameSize" for ParentFrameOffset is incorrect when CSRs are involved. We were supposed to have a test case to catch this, but it wasn't very rigorous. The main effect here is that calling _CxxThrowException inside a catchpad doesn't immediately crash on MOVAPS when you have an odd number of CSRs. llvm-svn: 250583
2015-10-17 07:43:27 +08:00
[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 13:38:55 +08:00
handler1:
%cp1 = catchpad within %cs [%rtti.TypeDescriptor2* @"\01??_R0H@8", i32 0, i8* null]
catchret from %cp1 to label %try.cont
[WinEH] Fix stack alignment in funclets and ParentFrameOffset calculation Our previous value of "16 + 8 + MaxCallFrameSize" for ParentFrameOffset is incorrect when CSRs are involved. We were supposed to have a test case to catch this, but it wasn't very rigorous. The main effect here is that calling _CxxThrowException inside a catchpad doesn't immediately crash on MOVAPS when you have an odd number of CSRs. llvm-svn: 250583
2015-10-17 07:43:27 +08:00
[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 13:38:55 +08:00
try.cont:
[WinEH] Fix stack alignment in funclets and ParentFrameOffset calculation Our previous value of "16 + 8 + MaxCallFrameSize" for ParentFrameOffset is incorrect when CSRs are involved. We were supposed to have a test case to catch this, but it wasn't very rigorous. The main effect here is that calling _CxxThrowException inside a catchpad doesn't immediately crash on MOVAPS when you have an odd number of CSRs. llvm-svn: 250583
2015-10-17 07:43:27 +08:00
ret i32 0
}
; X64-LABEL: try_no_csr:
; X64: pushq %rbp
; X64: .seh_pushreg 5
; X64-NOT: pushq
; X64: subq $48, %rsp
; X64: .seh_stackalloc 48
; X64: leaq 48(%rsp), %rbp
; X64: .seh_setframe 5, 48
; X64: .seh_endprologue
; X64: movl $1, %ecx
; 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 23:06:05 +08:00
; X64: [[contbb:\.LBB2_[0-9]+]]: # Block address taken
; X64-NEXT: # %try.cont
[WinEH] Fix stack alignment in funclets and ParentFrameOffset calculation Our previous value of "16 + 8 + MaxCallFrameSize" for ParentFrameOffset is incorrect when CSRs are involved. We were supposed to have a test case to catch this, but it wasn't very rigorous. The main effect here is that calling _CxxThrowException inside a catchpad doesn't immediately crash on MOVAPS when you have an odd number of CSRs. llvm-svn: 250583
2015-10-17 07:43:27 +08:00
; X64: addq $48, %rsp
; X64-NOT: popq
; X64: popq %rbp
; X64: retq
; X64: "?catch$[[catch1bb:[0-9]+]]@?0?try_no_csr@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 13:38:55 +08:00
; X64: LBB2_[[catch1bb]]: # %handler1{{$}}
[WinEH] Fix stack alignment in funclets and ParentFrameOffset calculation Our previous value of "16 + 8 + MaxCallFrameSize" for ParentFrameOffset is incorrect when CSRs are involved. We were supposed to have a test case to catch this, but it wasn't very rigorous. The main effect here is that calling _CxxThrowException inside a catchpad doesn't immediately crash on MOVAPS when you have an odd number of CSRs. llvm-svn: 250583
2015-10-17 07:43:27 +08:00
; 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
; X64: leaq [[contbb]](%rip), %rax
; X64: addq $32, %rsp
; X64: popq %rbp
; X64: retq
; X64: $handlerMap$0$try_no_csr:
; X64: .long 0
; X64: .long "??_R0H@8"@IMGREL
; X64: .long 0
; X64: .long "?catch$[[catch1bb]]@?0?try_no_csr@4HA"@IMGREL
[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 06:44:41 +08:00
; X64: .long 56