2015-10-02 05:38:24 +08:00
|
|
|
; RUN: llc < %s | FileCheck %s
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
; Based on the source:
|
|
|
|
; extern "C" int puts(const char *);
|
|
|
|
; extern "C" int printf(const char *, ...);
|
|
|
|
; extern "C" int do_div(int a, int b) { return a / b; }
|
|
|
|
; extern "C" int filt();
|
|
|
|
; int main() {
|
|
|
|
; __try {
|
|
|
|
; __try {
|
|
|
|
; do_div(1, 0);
|
|
|
|
; } __except (1) {
|
|
|
|
; __try {
|
|
|
|
; do_div(1, 0);
|
|
|
|
; } __finally {
|
|
|
|
; puts("finally");
|
|
|
|
; }
|
|
|
|
; }
|
|
|
|
; } __except (filt()) {
|
|
|
|
; puts("caught");
|
|
|
|
; }
|
|
|
|
; return 0;
|
|
|
|
; }
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
; ModuleID = 't.cpp'
|
|
|
|
target datalayout = "e-m:w-i64:64-f80:128-n8:16:32:64-S128"
|
|
|
|
target triple = "x86_64-pc-windows-msvc"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$"\01??_C@_07MKBLAIAL@finally?$AA@" = comdat any
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$"\01??_C@_06IBDBCMGJ@caught?$AA@" = comdat any
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@"\01??_C@_07MKBLAIAL@finally?$AA@" = linkonce_odr unnamed_addr constant [8 x i8] c"finally\00", comdat, align 1
|
|
|
|
@"\01??_C@_06IBDBCMGJ@caught?$AA@" = linkonce_odr unnamed_addr constant [7 x i8] c"caught\00", comdat, align 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
; Function Attrs: nounwind readnone
|
|
|
|
define i32 @do_div(i32 %a, i32 %b) #0 {
|
|
|
|
entry:
|
|
|
|
%div = sdiv i32 %a, %b
|
|
|
|
ret i32 %div
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
define i32 @main() #1 personality i8* bitcast (i32 (...)* @__C_specific_handler to i8*) {
|
|
|
|
entry:
|
|
|
|
%call = invoke i32 @do_div(i32 1, i32 0) #4
|
|
|
|
to label %__try.cont.12 unwind label %catch.dispatch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
__except.2: ; preds = %__except
|
|
|
|
%call4 = invoke i32 @do_div(i32 1, i32 0) #4
|
|
|
|
to label %invoke.cont.3 unwind label %ehcleanup
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
invoke.cont.3: ; preds = %__except.2
|
|
|
|
invoke fastcc void @"\01?fin$0@0@main@@"() #4
|
|
|
|
to label %__try.cont.12 unwind label %catch.dispatch.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
__except.9: ; preds = %__except.ret
|
|
|
|
%call11 = tail call i32 @puts(i8* nonnull getelementptr inbounds ([7 x i8], [7 x i8]* @"\01??_C@_06IBDBCMGJ@caught?$AA@", i64 0, i64 0))
|
|
|
|
br label %__try.cont.12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
__try.cont.12: ; preds = %invoke.cont.3, %entry, %__except.9
|
|
|
|
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: ; preds = %entry
|
|
|
|
%cs1 = catchswitch within none [label %__except] unwind label %catch.dispatch.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
__except: ; preds = %catch.dispatch
|
|
|
|
%cp1 = catchpad within %cs1 [i8* null]
|
|
|
|
catchret from %cp1 to label %__except.2
|
2015-10-02 05:38:24 +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
|
|
|
ehcleanup: ; preds = %__except.2
|
|
|
|
%cp2 = cleanuppad within none []
|
2015-12-16 05:27:27 +08:00
|
|
|
invoke fastcc void @"\01?fin$0@0@main@@"() #4 [ "funclet"(token %cp2) ]
|
[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
|
|
|
to label %invoke.cont.6 unwind label %catch.dispatch.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
invoke.cont.6: ; preds = %ehcleanup
|
|
|
|
cleanupret from %cp2 unwind label %catch.dispatch.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
catch.dispatch.7:
|
|
|
|
%cs2 = catchswitch within none [label %__except.ret] unwind to caller
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
__except.ret: ; preds = %catch.dispatch.7
|
|
|
|
%cp3 = catchpad within %cs2 [i8* bitcast (i32 (i8*, i8*)* @"\01?filt$0@0@main@@" to i8*)]
|
|
|
|
catchret from %cp3 to label %__except.9
|
2015-10-02 05:38:24 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: main: # @main
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: .seh_proc main
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: .seh_handler __C_specific_handler, @unwind, @except
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: pushq %rbp
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: .seh_pushreg 5
|
2015-11-12 03:21:09 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK: subq $32, %rsp
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: .seh_stackalloc 32
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: leaq 32(%rsp), %rbp
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: .seh_setframe 5, 32
|
2015-10-02 05:38:24 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK: .seh_endprologue
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: .Ltmp0:
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: movl $1, %ecx
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: xorl %edx, %edx
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: callq do_div
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: .Ltmp1:
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: .LBB1_[[epilogue:[0-9]+]]: # %__try.cont.12
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: xorl %eax, %eax
|
2015-11-12 03:21:09 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK: addq $32, %rsp
|
2015-10-02 05:38:24 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK: popq %rbp
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: retq
|
[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_[[except1bb:[0-9]+]]: # %__except
|
2015-10-02 05:38:24 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK: .Ltmp2:
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: movl $1, %ecx
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: xorl %edx, %edx
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: callq do_div
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: .Ltmp3:
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: callq "?fin$0@0@main@@"
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: jmp .LBB1_[[epilogue]]
|
[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_[[except2bb:[0-9]+]]: # %__except.ret
|
2015-10-02 05:38:24 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK: leaq "??_C@_06IBDBCMGJ@caught?$AA@"(%rip), %rcx
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: callq puts
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: jmp .LBB1_[[epilogue]]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: .seh_handlerdata
|
2015-10-03 04:52:14 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: .long (.Llsda_end0-.Llsda_begin0)/16
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: .Llsda_begin0:
|
2015-10-10 04:39:39 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: .long .Ltmp0@IMGREL+1
|
2015-10-02 05:38:24 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: .long .Ltmp1@IMGREL+1
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: .long 1
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: .long .LBB1_[[except1bb]]@IMGREL
|
2015-10-10 04:39:39 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: .long .Ltmp0@IMGREL+1
|
2015-10-02 05:38:24 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: .long .Ltmp1@IMGREL+1
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: .long "?filt$0@0@main@@"@IMGREL
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: .long .LBB1_[[except2bb]]@IMGREL
|
2015-10-10 04:39:39 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: .long .Ltmp2@IMGREL+1
|
2015-10-02 05:38:24 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: .long .Ltmp3@IMGREL+1
|
2015-10-08 05:34:00 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: .long "?dtor$[[finbb:[0-9]+]]@?0?main@4HA"@IMGREL
|
2015-10-02 05:38:24 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: .long 0
|
2015-10-10 04:39:39 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: .long .Ltmp2@IMGREL+1
|
2015-10-02 05:38:24 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: .long .Ltmp3@IMGREL+1
|
|
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: .long "?filt$0@0@main@@"@IMGREL
|
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR
While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on
top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies:
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design
but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM
experts.
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot
be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes.
This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation.
- catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward.
It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other
funclets.
- The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of
control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully
analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal
nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when
they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a
representation which forbade them upfront.
Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following:
- Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control
flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable.
- Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model
the constraints of funclet oriented EH.
- Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume
the token produced by the funclet which contains them.
- Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred
implicitly using coloring information.
N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the
veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a
look to make sure the results are reasonable.
Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139
llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: .long .LBB1_3@IMGREL
|
2015-10-10 04:39:39 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: .long .Ltmp6@IMGREL+1
|
2015-10-10 07:05:54 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: .long .Ltmp7@IMGREL+1
|
2015-10-10 04:39:39 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: .long "?filt$0@0@main@@"@IMGREL
|
[IR] Reformulate LLVM's EH funclet IR
While we have successfully implemented a funclet-oriented EH scheme on
top of LLVM IR, our scheme has some notable deficiencies:
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are necessary in the current design
but they are difficult to explain to others, even to seasoned LLVM
experts.
- catchendpad and cleanupendpad are optimization barriers. They cannot
be split and force all potentially throwing call-sites to be invokes.
This has a noticable effect on the quality of our code generation.
- catchpad, while similar in some aspects to invoke, is fairly awkward.
It is unsplittable, starts a funclet, and has control flow to other
funclets.
- The nesting relationship between funclets is currently a property of
control flow edges. Because of this, we are forced to carefully
analyze the flow graph to see if there might potentially exist illegal
nesting among funclets. While we have logic to clone funclets when
they are illegally nested, it would be nicer if we had a
representation which forbade them upfront.
Let's clean this up a bit by doing the following:
- Instead, make catchpad more like cleanuppad and landingpad: no control
flow, just a bunch of simple operands; catchpad would be splittable.
- Introduce catchswitch, a control flow instruction designed to model
the constraints of funclet oriented EH.
- Make funclet scoping explicit by having funclet instructions consume
the token produced by the funclet which contains them.
- Remove catchendpad and cleanupendpad. Their presence can be inferred
implicitly using coloring information.
N.B. The state numbering code for the CLR has been updated but the
veracity of it's output cannot be spoken for. An expert should take a
look to make sure the results are reasonable.
Reviewers: rnk, JosephTremoulet, andrew.w.kaylor
Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D15139
llvm-svn: 255422
2015-12-12 13:38:55 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: .long .LBB1_3@IMGREL
|
2015-10-03 04:52:14 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK-NEXT: .Llsda_end0:
|
2015-10-02 05:38:24 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: .text
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: .seh_endproc
|
|
|
|
|
[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: "?dtor$[[finbb]]@?0?main@4HA":
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: .seh_proc "?dtor$[[finbb]]@?0?main@4HA"
|
2015-10-02 05:38:24 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK: .seh_handler __C_specific_handler, @unwind, @except
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: .LBB1_[[finbb]]: # %ehcleanup
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: movq %rdx, 16(%rsp)
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: pushq %rbp
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: .seh_pushreg 5
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: subq $32, %rsp
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: .seh_stackalloc 32
|
2015-11-12 03:21:09 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK: leaq 32(%rdx), %rbp
|
2015-10-02 05:38:24 +08:00
|
|
|
; CHECK: .seh_endprologue
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: callq "?fin$0@0@main@@"
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: nop
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: addq $32, %rsp
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: popq %rbp
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: retq
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: .seh_handlerdata
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: .seh_endproc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
define internal i32 @"\01?filt$0@0@main@@"(i8* nocapture readnone %exception_pointers, i8* nocapture readnone %frame_pointer) #1 {
|
|
|
|
entry:
|
|
|
|
%call = tail call i32 @filt()
|
|
|
|
ret i32 %call
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: "?filt$0@0@main@@": # @"\01?filt$0@0@main@@"
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: .seh_proc "?filt$0@0@main@@"
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: .seh_endprologue
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: rex64 jmp filt # TAILCALL
|
|
|
|
; CHECK: .seh_handlerdata
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
declare i32 @filt() #1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
declare i32 @__C_specific_handler(...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
; Function Attrs: noinline nounwind
|
|
|
|
define internal fastcc void @"\01?fin$0@0@main@@"() #2 {
|
|
|
|
entry:
|
|
|
|
%call = tail call i32 @puts(i8* getelementptr inbounds ([8 x i8], [8 x i8]* @"\01??_C@_07MKBLAIAL@finally?$AA@", i64 0, i64 0)) #5
|
|
|
|
ret void
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
; Function Attrs: nounwind
|
|
|
|
declare i32 @puts(i8* nocapture readonly) #3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
attributes #0 = { nounwind readnone "disable-tail-calls"="false" "less-precise-fpmad"="false" "no-frame-pointer-elim"="false" "no-infs-fp-math"="false" "no-nans-fp-math"="false" "stack-protector-buffer-size"="8" "target-features"="+sse,+sse2" "unsafe-fp-math"="false" "use-soft-float"="false" }
|
|
|
|
attributes #1 = { "disable-tail-calls"="false" "less-precise-fpmad"="false" "no-frame-pointer-elim"="false" "no-infs-fp-math"="false" "no-nans-fp-math"="false" "stack-protector-buffer-size"="8" "target-features"="+sse,+sse2" "unsafe-fp-math"="false" "use-soft-float"="false" }
|
|
|
|
attributes #2 = { noinline nounwind "disable-tail-calls"="false" "less-precise-fpmad"="false" "no-frame-pointer-elim"="false" "no-infs-fp-math"="false" "no-nans-fp-math"="false" "stack-protector-buffer-size"="8" "target-features"="+sse,+sse2" "unsafe-fp-math"="false" "use-soft-float"="false" }
|
|
|
|
attributes #3 = { nounwind "disable-tail-calls"="false" "less-precise-fpmad"="false" "no-frame-pointer-elim"="false" "no-infs-fp-math"="false" "no-nans-fp-math"="false" "stack-protector-buffer-size"="8" "target-features"="+sse,+sse2" "unsafe-fp-math"="false" "use-soft-float"="false" }
|
|
|
|
attributes #4 = { noinline }
|
|
|
|
attributes #5 = { nounwind }
|