llvm-project/llvm/test/CodeGen/X86/win32-eh.ll

147 lines
4.3 KiB
LLVM
Raw Normal View History

; RUN: llc -mtriple=i686-pc-windows-msvc < %s | FileCheck %s
declare void @may_throw_or_crash()
declare i32 @_except_handler3(...)
declare i32 @_except_handler4(...)
declare i32 @__CxxFrameHandler3(...)
declare void @llvm.eh.begincatch(i8*, i8*)
declare void @llvm.eh.endcatch()
declare i32 @llvm.eh.typeid.for(i8*)
define internal i32 @catchall_filt() {
ret i32 1
}
define void @use_except_handler3() personality i32 (...)* @_except_handler3 {
entry:
invoke void @may_throw_or_crash()
to label %cont unwind label %lpad
cont:
ret void
lpad:
[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
%cs = catchswitch within none [label %catch] unwind to caller
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 13:38:55 +08:00
%p = catchpad within %cs [i8* bitcast (i32 ()* @catchall_filt to i8*)]
catchret from %p to label %cont
}
; CHECK-LABEL: _use_except_handler3:
; CHECK: pushl %ebp
; CHECK: movl %esp, %ebp
; CHECK: pushl %ebx
; CHECK: pushl %edi
; CHECK: pushl %esi
; CHECK: subl ${{[0-9]+}}, %esp
; CHECK: movl $-1, -16(%ebp)
; CHECK: movl $L__ehtable$use_except_handler3, -20(%ebp)
; CHECK: leal -28(%ebp), %[[node:[^ ,]*]]
; CHECK: movl $__except_handler3, -24(%ebp)
; CHECK: movl %fs:0, %[[next:[^ ,]*]]
; CHECK: movl %[[next]], -28(%ebp)
; CHECK: movl %[[node]], %fs:0
; CHECK: calll _may_throw_or_crash
; CHECK: movl -28(%ebp), %[[next:[^ ,]*]]
; CHECK: movl %[[next]], %fs:0
; CHECK: retl
[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
; CHECK: LBB1_2: # %catch{{$}}
; CHECK: .section .xdata,"dr"
; CHECK-LABEL: L__ehtable$use_except_handler3:
; CHECK-NEXT: .long -1
; CHECK-NEXT: .long _catchall_filt
; CHECK-NEXT: .long LBB1_2
define void @use_except_handler4() personality i32 (...)* @_except_handler4 {
entry:
invoke void @may_throw_or_crash()
to label %cont unwind label %lpad
cont:
ret void
lpad:
[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
%cs = catchswitch within none [label %catch] unwind to caller
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 13:38:55 +08:00
%p = catchpad within %cs [i8* bitcast (i32 ()* @catchall_filt to i8*)]
catchret from %p to label %cont
}
; CHECK-LABEL: _use_except_handler4:
; CHECK: pushl %ebp
; CHECK: movl %esp, %ebp
; CHECK: subl ${{[0-9]+}}, %esp
; CHECK: movl %esp, -36(%ebp)
; CHECK: movl $-2, -16(%ebp)
; CHECK: movl $L__ehtable$use_except_handler4, %[[lsda:[^ ,]*]]
; CHECK: xorl ___security_cookie, %[[lsda]]
; CHECK: movl %[[lsda]], -20(%ebp)
; CHECK: leal -28(%ebp), %[[node:[^ ,]*]]
; CHECK: movl $__except_handler4, -24(%ebp)
; CHECK: movl %fs:0, %[[next:[^ ,]*]]
; CHECK: movl %[[next]], -28(%ebp)
; CHECK: movl %[[node]], %fs:0
; CHECK: calll _may_throw_or_crash
; CHECK: movl -28(%ebp), %[[next:[^ ,]*]]
; CHECK: movl %[[next]], %fs:0
; CHECK: retl
[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
; CHECK: LBB2_2: # %catch{{$}}
; CHECK: .section .xdata,"dr"
; CHECK-LABEL: L__ehtable$use_except_handler4:
; CHECK-NEXT: .long -2
; CHECK-NEXT: .long 0
; CHECK-NEXT: .long 9999
; CHECK-NEXT: .long 0
; CHECK-NEXT: .long -2
; CHECK-NEXT: .long _catchall_filt
; CHECK-NEXT: .long LBB2_2
define void @use_CxxFrameHandler3() personality i32 (...)* @__CxxFrameHandler3 {
invoke void @may_throw_or_crash()
to label %cont unwind label %catchall
cont:
ret void
catchall:
[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
%cs = catchswitch within none [label %catch] unwind to caller
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 13:38:55 +08:00
%p = catchpad within %cs [i8* null, i32 64, i8* null]
catchret from %p to label %cont
}
; CHECK-LABEL: _use_CxxFrameHandler3:
; CHECK: pushl %ebp
; CHECK: movl %esp, %ebp
; CHECK: subl ${{[0-9]+}}, %esp
; CHECK: movl %esp, -28(%ebp)
; CHECK: movl $-1, -16(%ebp)
; CHECK: leal -24(%ebp), %[[node:[^ ,]*]]
; CHECK: movl $___ehhandler$use_CxxFrameHandler3, -20(%ebp)
; CHECK: movl %fs:0, %[[next:[^ ,]*]]
; CHECK: movl %[[next]], -24(%ebp)
; CHECK: movl %[[node]], %fs:0
; CHECK: movl $0, -16(%ebp)
; CHECK: calll _may_throw_or_crash
; CHECK: movl -24(%ebp), %[[next:[^ ,]*]]
; CHECK: movl %[[next]], %fs:0
; CHECK: retl
; CHECK: .section .xdata,"dr"
; CHECK: .align 4
; CHECK-LABEL: L__ehtable$use_CxxFrameHandler3:
; CHECK-NEXT: .long 429065506
; CHECK-NEXT: .long 2
; CHECK-NEXT: .long ($stateUnwindMap$use_CxxFrameHandler3)
; CHECK-NEXT: .long 1
; CHECK-NEXT: .long ($tryMap$use_CxxFrameHandler3)
; CHECK-NEXT: .long 0
; CHECK-NEXT: .long 0
; CHECK-NEXT: .long 0
; CHECK-NEXT: .long 1
; CHECK-LABEL: ___ehhandler$use_CxxFrameHandler3:
; CHECK: movl $L__ehtable$use_CxxFrameHandler3, %eax
; CHECK: jmp ___CxxFrameHandler3 # TAILCALL
; CHECK: .safeseh __except_handler3
; CHECK: .safeseh __except_handler4
; CHECK: .safeseh ___ehhandler$use_CxxFrameHandler3